SUNKARA LAXMAIAH Vs. VADLAPUDI VENKATESWARA RAO (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dl and D2 are the appellants. The plaintiff is the transferee from D3 under a pronote dated 2-11-1968. D3 transferred the pronote in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,352/-. The pronote amount under Ex.Al is Rs.3,900/-. The plaintiff claimed relief under Ex.A-1 by virtue of the transfer under Ex.A2 against Dl and D2 executants of the pronote and for an alternate relief against D3. The district Munsif dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against Dl and D2 and decreed the suit against D3. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the decree against Dl and D2. The learned district Judge set aside the decree passed by the district Munsif against D3 though there was no appeal by D3, and decreed the suit against Dl and D2. Aggrieved by the same Dl and D2 filed the present appeal.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows :

(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 I 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 pronole get 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 Ihe third defendant. Unless paltas 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 paltas are granted so far. Therefore, the claim under Ihe said pronote is premature. Since the plaintiflTis not abona 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 Ihe suit to harass these defendants. Therefore, the suit has to be dismissed with costs.