K PITCHAIAH Vs. SANTHNAGAR WIRE PRODUCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants. Respondents 1, 2 and 3, 4 and 5 being the legal representatives of the second respondent who died subsequently, laid the suit on the foot of the promissory note, Ex.A-9 dated April 15, 1971, executed by the first appellant in favour of the first respondent and the second appellant stood as surety, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The trial Court decreed the suit. Thus, the apeal

(2.) The first respondent-first plaintiff is a partnership firm consisting of 2nd and 3rd respondents. Earlier, the second respondent and her mother, Begum Lulu Hasan Nawaz Jung were partners. Their present case is that the first appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,00/- from Bsgum Lulu Hasan Nawaz Jung, for short, "the promisee" under Exs.A-5 and A-6 in the year 1968 in sums of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively and the second appellant endorsed two cheques, Exs.A-7 and A8, which bore initially the date April 1, 1968 but later corrected as July 1, 1968, as collateral security. Before expiry, when demanded, the first appellant executed Ex.A-9 suit promissory note dated April 15, 1971, in renewal of the promissory notes Ex.AS and A6 and despite promising to pay, he did not pay. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defence of the appellants is that the first appellant did not borrow any amount from promisee. He was introduced by the second appellant to one Abdullah Rowji, the husband of the second respondent,who was now admitted to be looking after the business of the first respondant-firm. The said Abdullah Rowji lent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- He executed Ex.A-30 in favour of the first respondent and for recovery thereof, O. S. No. 130/72 was laid and on admission, it was decreed. Since late Abdullah Rowji was involved in money-lending business with black money he requested the appellant to execute blank promissory notes. He accommodated him by signing several blank papers for the purpose of- income-tax. He denied the execution of the promissory note under Ex.A-9 and receipt of consideration and also denied the execution of any promissory note in favour of the promisee. He denied Ex.A-9, a renewal of Exs.A-5 and A-6. Yet, the Court below accepted the plea of the respondents and held that the first appellant had executed Ex.A-9, it is a renewal of Exs. A-5 and A-6 ; consideration was paid thereunder ; the second appellant stood as a surety and accordingly decreed the suit.