VADALI NARASIMHA SASTRY Vs. SAKHINALA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit is laid on the foot of a promissory note Ex A-1 executed by the defendant on 14-5-1972 for a sum of Rs 6,500/- The interest stipulated in the said document is Rs 1-87 for Rs 100/- per month and the defendant as per agreement dated 22-6-1972 put the plaintiff in possession of property of Acs. 2 26 cents of land to be enjoyed towards interest, and the rent fixed is one other of the gross produce and hence the suit for recovery of the principal cmount alone.

(2.) The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note and also the agreement of putting the plaintiff in possession of the property in lieu of interest. But what was disputed is that the agreement is only for one year and the rent agreed is ten bags of paddy per acre or ten tonnes of sugar cane per acre and for the first year 1972-73 there was both sugar cane crop and paddy crop which was ostimatad at Rs.1,459/-and the defendant being agriculturist was protected by Act 4 of 1938 and he is liable to pay only 51% per annum and after deducting the 51/2% interest the rest of the rent should go towards the principal amount and on such calculation the whole debt was discharged and on the other the plaintiff has to pay Rs 1153/-with interest and for the said amount he set up a counter claim paying the court fee.

(3.) The Trial Court accepted the defence and held that the agreement Ex. A-3 does not disclose the recital regarding the payment of rent and the interest payable by the defendant on promissory note and the rent claimed by the defendant almost tally and on the basis of the rent pleaded by ths defendant the suit debt is discharged as the plaintiff is entitled to claim only statutory interest. Regarding the counterclaim it was held that Ex A-3 is silent about the claim of the defendant and hence he cannot claim any refund of amount and consequently dismissed the counter claim of the defendant also. Against the said judgment and decree both parties preferred appeal and cross-objections. The appellate court held that the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff is true and the rent payable is only 1/4th of the gross produce and the said amount is not sufficient even for paying the statutory rate of interest of 51/2% as the plaintiff did not claim any interest and could not claim, decreed the suit as prayed for. The appellate court also dismissed the counter claim of the defendant as there was no surplus left. Against the said judgment and decree the defendant filed this second appeal.