NARASIMHA RAO Vs. LAXMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants. The suit it filed for recovery of Rt. 21,997.02 being the balance due on a promissory note dated 7-8-1963 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 1st plaintiff for Rs. 20,000/- payable with compound interest at 1.03% p.m. The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are members of Hindu joint family and the 1st plaintiff is the manager there of and defendants are also members of Hindu joint family of which the 1st defendant is the manager. The 1st defendant for family necessity executed a promissory note dated 7-8-1963 for Rs, 20,000/- in favour of 1st plaintiff promising to pay the said amount with interest at 1 03% p.m. yearly compound. The 1st defendant borrowed cash of Rs. 10,700/-on 7-8-1963 and the balance comprises the amounts due to the 1st plaintiff under the prior promissory notes. On 25-9-1965 the 1st defendant paid Rs. 5,911.44 p. towards interst and Rs. 700/- towards principal and on 15-5-1966 Rs. 10,000/- was paid and was endorsed on the back of the suit promissory note. The 1st defendant also paid Rs. 5/- on 28-4-1969 and made an endrosement on the suit pronote acknowledging his liability. The defendants family is an Income-tax assessee at all material times and therefore not entitled to the benefit of Act IV of 1938.

(2.) The plea of the 1st defendant and also adopted by defendants 2 to 4 is as follows: The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action. The defendants are agriculturists and so they are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The calculation of the suit amount is not correct and the interest stipulated is exorbitant, excessive and illegal. The plaintiff are not entitled for interest over and above 51/2% p. a. The allegation that the defendants family is Income-tax assessee at all material times is denied. The defendants family was not at all Income-tax assessee during the crucial dates of borrowing and as such the defendants are entitled for the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the interest over and above 51/2% p. a. If the interest is calculated on the amounts paid by the defendants on several occasions, nothing wou'd be dus on the suit promissory note. The 1st plaintiff obtained the thumb impression of 1st defendant on 28-4-1969 without collecting the amount of Rs. 5/- alleged to have been paid on that day just'to keep the suit promissory note debt in time and therefore there is no acknowledgment of the debt and hence the suit is barred by limitation.

(3.) On the above pleadings the following issues were framed: