YEKA RAJAMMA Vs. PYDIGANTAM BUTHIRAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent plaintiff against the 1st defendant, who is the appellant before me as well as against the 2nd defendant. The facts necessary for the purpose of understanding the arguments advanced before me are that the 2nd defendant married the 1st defendant's daughter. The 1st defendant's daughter filed O.S. No. 121 of 1964 in the Sub Court, Visakhapatnam against the 2nd defendant for maintenance. The claim however was compromised. The law defendant's daughter was given one-fourth share in the property of the 2nd defendant for life. The 2nd defendant : however filed O S. N. 31 of 1957 before the District Munsif Yellamanchili for cancellation of the above said compromise on the ground that the 1st defendant's daughter was unchaste and was not entitled to get any maintenance.

(2.) Pending that suit,the parties again entered into a compromise. In pursuance of that compromise, defendants 1 and 2 both executed separate promissory notes for Rs. 1500/- in favour of the respondent plaintiff. The plaintiff transferred these promissory notes consideration in favour of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant instituted a suit for the recovery of the amount due on the promissory note (Exhibit A-1) against the respondent-plaintiff as well as against the 1st defendant who was the executor of the promissory note .

(3.) The plaintiff and the 1st defendant contested separately the suit on similar grounds. Their main contention was that both the promissory note as well as the endorsement are not supported by consideration. On enquiry however it was found that the promissory note as well as the endorsement were supported by consideration and consequently a decree was passed in favour of the 2nd defendant against the respondent-plaintiff as well as 1st defendant-appellant.