VAKKALAGADDA KONDIAH Vs. CHANNAMSETTY PEDDA PULLIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a revision petition on behalf of the plaintiff and it is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-7-1955 of the District Munsif, Narasaraopet, dismissing the suit.

(2.) To appreciate the points canvassed before me a few facts need be mentioned. Channamsetty Pedda Puliah, respondent No. 1, Boligorla Yerrayya father of Respondents 2 to 4, Madagani Venkatigaou father of respondent No. 5, and Megali Pulligadu, respondent No. 6 executed a promissory note Ex. A-1 on 6-11-1945 promising to pay Rs. 300.00 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. On 4-11-1948 they made an endorsement Ex. A1(a) on Ex. A.1 to the effect that a promissory note is executed for the sum of principal and interest for Rs. 410-4-0 due under the promissory note. The renewed promissory note, Ex. A-2 again bore the endorsement, Ex. A.2(a) by the promisors acknowledging the payment of Rs. 4.00 on 2-11-1951 under Ex. A.2.

(3.) The petitioner brought SCS No. 500 of 1954 for recovery of Rs. 444.00 towards the principal and interest due under the renewed promissory note. Respondents 1 to 5 resisted the suit. They contended that the suit promissory note had been materially altered by the plaintiff and for that reason the same was not enforceable. They denied that they ever paid Rs. 4.00 on 2-11-1951 as alleged by the petitioner and that the endorsement to that effect was forgery. Their last plea was that about three years back, the 1st respondent and fathers of respondents 2 to 4 and 5 had paid Rs. 400.00 in full discharge of the suit debt.