CHALASANI SUBBARAYUDU Vs. KALAGARA VENKATA SUBBARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this case is whether the lower appellate Court was justified in setting aside the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendants 8 to 12 by the trial Court particularly when no appeal was filed by defendants 8 to 12, in an appeal preferred by the 1st defendant against the plaintiff confining the scope of the appear to that of scaling down of the amount decreed against him by the trial Court. The necessary facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,000 on the foot of a promissory note dated 18-7-1955 alleging inter alia that the 1st defendant executed the promissory note in favour of the 8th defendant. The 8th defendant transferred the promissory note on 16-3-1958 to the plaintiff. He impleaded defendants 2 to 7 who are the sons of the 1st defendant on the ground that they are also liable as the loan was obtained for the benefit of the joint family. Defendants 9 to 12 were impleaded on the ground that along with the 8th defendant, they being the members of the joint family are also liable. This suit was resisted by the 1st defendant on various grounds. The only question which was raised by the 8th defendant in his written statement was that the plaintiff did not give him any notice of dishonour of the promissory note and that therefore he and his sons are not liable.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit against defendants 1 and 8 personally and also gave a decree against the joint family property in possession of defendants 8 to 12. The trial Court also gave a decree in favour of the defendants Nos. 8 to 12 against defendants 1 to 7 observing that in case they pay the amount, they can recover the same from defendants 1 to 7.

(3.) The 1st defendant preferred A. S. 58/60 limiting the scope of his appeal to the scaling down of the debt on the foot of the promissory note alleging that it was the renewal of a previous promissory note and that the trial Court did not consider this question. A. S. 59/60 was filed by defendants 2 to 7 against defendants 8 to 12, as they were aggrieved by the fact that no decree in favour of defendants 8 to 12 could be passed as was passed by the trial Court.