LAXMAIAH S DIED Vs. V VENKATESWARA RAO DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D- 1 and D-2 are the appellants. The plaintiff is the transferee from D-3 under a pronote dated 2-11-1968. D-3 transferred the pronote in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,352/- The pronote amount under Ex.A-1 is Rs.3,900/-. The plaintiff claimed relief under Ex.A-1 by virtue of the transfer under Ex. A-2 against D-l and D-2 executants of the pronote and for an alternate relief against D-3. The District Munsif dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against D-l and D-2 and decreed the suit against D-3. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the decree against D-l and D-2. The learned District (sic. Subordinate) Judge set aside the decree passed by the District Munsif against D-3 though there was no appeal by D-3, and decreed the suit against D-l and D-2. Aggrieved by the same D-l and D-2 filed the present appeal.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows: Defendants 1 and 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.3,900/- from the third defendant and executed a pronote on 2-11-1968 at Nuzvid and executed the suit pronote agreeing to pay the same with interest at 6% per annum. The third defendant transferred the said pronote in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,352/- on 6-10-70 as per the endorsement made on the reverse of the pronote. The plaintiff subsequently issued a notice to the 1st and 2nd defendants to pay the amount and the defendants replied stating that the transfer is not supported by consideration and that they did not receive any consideration under the suit pronote and hence the suit pronote is not supported by consideration. On receipt of the reply the plaintiff informed the same to the third defendant and filed the present suit and impleaded him as he is a necessary party to the suit. In this plaint he averred that in case the pronote becomes unenforceable against the 1st and 2nd defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the third defendant with costs and interest.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement admitting execution of pronote for Rs.3,900/- but denying consideration. It is averred that the third defendant sold some lands in his estate to defendants 1 and 2 and their relatives and, on the abolition of the estates defendants 1 and 2 could not get pattas from the Government for the said lands and therefore, they approached the third defendant asking for his help and in that connection after paying Rs.740/- cash as part of sale consideration to him, for the balance of the amount of Rs.3,900/- the suit pronote was executed, with an understanding that if the patta is granted by the Government the defendants 1 and 2 will have to pay Rs.3,900/- in the absence of which the pronote gets cancelled and that after the third defendant gave a letter in writing on 2-11-1968 undertaking to fulfil his obligation to secure pattas to the defendants 1 and 2. The scribe of the said letter is the clerk of the third defendant and it was duly signed by the third defendant. Unless pattas are granted by the settlement authorities the third defendant or his alleged transferee, and the plaintiff are not entitled to recover any amount under the pronote. No pattas are granted so far. Therefore, the claim under the said pronote is premature. Since the plaintiff is not a bona fide holder in due course the plaintiff cannot recover any amount from these defendants. The plaintiff who is inimically disposed towards these defendants conspired with the third defendant and brought the suit to harass these defendants. Therefore, the suit has to be dismissed with costs.