VERRATHATI RAMA SUBBAIAH Vs. KATHAPALLI VENKATA SUBBA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.360 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Proddatur. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the suit, against the appellant and the 3rd respondent, for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,942.30 ps.

(2.) Though the amount involved is small, the case has a chequered history and complicated facts. The brief facts, that gave rise to the filing of Second Appeal, are as under: The father of the appellant, by name Pedda Subbaiah, sold a piece of agricultural land, in favour of respondents 1 and 2, on 29.01.1982, for a consideration of Rs.29,673/-. A sum of Rs.19,673/- was paid and as regards the balance of Rs.10,000/-, a promissory note was executed, on the same date. The possession of the property was delivered. Shortly thereafter, a person, by name Sokanna, of the village, made a claim over the land. Mutation took place among the rival parties, in the presence of village elders. As per the understanding, arrived at the panchayat, respondents 1 and 2 agreed to sell the land to Sokanna, for the same consideration and the father of the appellant was to pay a sum of Rs.1,100/-, towards penalty. Apart from that, respondents 1 and 2 were also entitled to get interest on the sale consideration for the period, between the two transfers. In view of this, respondents 1 and 2 executed a sale deed in favour of Sokanna, sometime in June, 1982.

(3.) The father of the appellant is said to have transferred the promissory note, dated 29.01.1982 (for short "the promissory note"), in favour of one Subbanna, the 3rd respondent herein. The latter, in turn, filed O.S.No.30 of 1985, against respondents 1 and 2, for recovery of the amount mentioned therein. The father of the appellant was impleaded, as defendant No.3, in that suit. Initially, the suit was decreed ex parte but the same was set aside on 15.02.1988. Within one month thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.360 of 1988, against the appellants, for recovery of Rs.9,942/-, which included the amount sought to be recovered in O.S.No.30 of 1985, decree costs of Rs.947/- and Rs.900/- towards interest on Rs.5,000/-, which was held payable in the mutation. The claim in O.S.No.360 of 1988 and the defence in O.S.No.30 of 1985, on the part of respondents 1 and 2, was almost similar. They pleaded discharge of the promissory note stating that the appellant collected 67 bags of paddy in full satisfaction of the pronote.