B ANJANAIAH Vs. NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is on behalf of the defendant and is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges Court, Adoni, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff and decreeing the suit, which was dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) The dispute between the parties relates to the recovery of the amount due under a promissory note, Ex. A-1, which was executed by the defendant in favour of one late Ayyanna. The respondent-plaintiff claiming to be the nearest heir of late Ayyanna, obtained a succession certificate, Ex. A-2, dated 20-10-59 in O. P. No. 13/59 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Adoni, in respect of the above promissory note debt. On the basis of this succession certificate he filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 552.50P. against the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner denied that the plaintiff was the nearest heir of late Ayyanna. He also pleaded discharge of the suit debt by payment of the amount to Ayyannas widow. Mallamma before her re-marriage, under a receipt, Ex. B-1, dated 6-5-58. It was further averred that the issue of a succession certificate in favour of the plaintiff was not conclusive. The learned District Munsif held that the plaintiff was not the nearest heir to Ayyanna and was not entitled to maintain the suit. He also held that the plea of discharge was true. In the, result, the learned District Munisif dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court did not agree with the view of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Hence this revision is filed on behalf of the defendant.

(3.) In this revision, it is contended by Sri N. M. Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the lower appellate Court had not taken into account the fact that Mallamma, the widow, was the only heir to Ayyanna and that, in her presence, the plaintiff cannot claim to be the nearest heir. He next contended that the lower appellate Court erred in holding that the plea of discharge was not true when Mallamma admitted in her evidence that she received the amount due under the promissory note. On behalf of the other side, it is contended by the learned counsel that, when the plaintiff-respondent holds a succession certificate, he alone, under the law, would be entitled to recover the amount and that the lower appellate Court was right in holding so. On the question whether the payment of the amount to Mallamma, the widow, would be a valid discharge, the learned counsel contended that it would not be a valid discharge.