KARUMURI RAMA BRAHMA SASTRY Vs. PALADUGU NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O.S. No. 105 of 1958. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plain tiff laid the suit for the recovery of Rs. 9,956-12 on the foot of a promissory note executed by the first defendant in his favour for Rs. 10,000 payable with interest at Rs. 1-0-6 per cent, per mensem. He impleaded the first defendant's minor son as a member of the joint family alleging that the debt was binding on him. It is the plaintiff's case that he was a trader and merchant of Vijayawada, that the first defendant was also a trader having a shop named "Geetha Silk Palace ", Vijayawada, and that the first defendant borrowed Rs. 10,000 for his cloth business. The first defendant paid Rs. 100 on 10th December, 1957 and a further sum of Rs. 1,500 on 3rd March, 1958 which were given credit to and the balance claimed. The first defendant admitted the execution of the note and the sum borrowed thereunder, but pleaded that the rate of interest provided thereunder was intended to create fear, that the said rate of interest was not recoverable under the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 and further that he was an agriculturist and was liable to pay interest only at 5 per cent, per annum. In any event he prayed for a direction to pay the amount due in monthly instalments of Rs. 100 and that a decree might be passed accordingly.

(2.) The second defendant filed a written statement adopting the pleas of the first defendant and further raising the plea that the suit debt was not binding on him. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the defendants are agriculturists entitled to the benefits of Madras Act IV of 1938 ? (2) Whether the rate of interest charged is usurious and penal ? (3) Whether the payments pleaded by the defendants in paras. 5, 6 and 6 (a) are true and are to be taken into account with interest to be deducted in the suit plaint ? (4) Whether the suit claim is correct and binding on the defendants ? (5) Whether the 2nd defendant is not liable for the suit debt ? (6) Whether the suit claim is an avyavaharika debt, if so, whether the 2nd defendant is not liable ? (7) Whether the defendants ware liable for the costs of the suit ? (8) Whether the first defendant's prayer for payment of the correct dues by instalments of Rs. 100 per month is tenable ? (9) To what relief?

(3.) The findings on the said issues were these : that the defendants were not agriculturists ; that the rate of interest charged was not usurious and penal ; that the payments of Rs. 100 and Rs. 1,500 were true and the payments had been given credit to by the plaintiff; that the suit claim was correct and binding on the defendants ; that the 2nd defendant was liable for the suit debt as well ; that the suit claim was not an avyavaharika debt ; that the defendants were liable for the costs of the suit ; and that the defendants were permitted to pay the suit amount by way of instalments of Rs. 300 per month.