VELIVELLI SYDULU Vs. GUNTUPALLI VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment of Justice Seshachalapati in S. A. No. 575 of 1959 with the learned Judges leave.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated. The appellants father borrowed a sum of Rs. 950 on the 25/09/1950 and executed a promissory note for that sum on the same date. Sometime later a suit was instituted on behalf of the appellant that his father was leading an immoral life and was wasting away the family properties. This suit was not opposed by the father (he remaining ex parte), with the result that a preliminary decree was passed on the 28th of August 1953. On the same date, the father executed a promissory note in renewal of the debt for Rs. 1,117-1-10 and made an endorsement on the back of the promissory note which amounted to an acknowledgment of the debt. The final decree in the partition suit was passed on the 25th of August 1955. Meanwhile the respondent filed a suit for the recovery of the amount under the promissory notes impleading the father as well as the son as defendants to the suit. In this suit, the present appellant being minor at that time, was represented by the father. The father remained ex parte and a decree, as prayed for, was made. In execution of the decree Ac. 1-10 cents of land which was allotted to the share of the appellant in the partition suit was brought to sale and purchased by the decree-holder himself. It is to cancel the decree obtained by the respondent in the Small Cause Suit No. 175/1954, which resulted in the sale of the property, that the present action was laid by the appellant.

(3.) The main contentions of the appellant in the plaint were that the debt on the basis of which the decree was obtained being one contracted for immoral purposes, did not bind him and secondly that the decree based upon a promissory note renewed after the partition suit, could not be enforced against the son. The answers of the respondent to this suit were that the debt was not an Avyavaharika debt, that the partition was not a bone fide one in that it was designed to defeat the creditors and that in any event, the suit having been filed on the original debt, was not affected by the partition suit.