A SRINIVASULU NAIDU DIED Vs. P RAJASEKHARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant arises against the judgment and decree in OS No.45 of 1974 dated 22-8-1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chittoor where by the claim of the plaintiff for Rs. 15,9307- was decreed with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit and costs.

(2.) The claim in the suit rests on the allegation that in view of earlier friendly relations between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff lent a sum of Rs.14,500.00 to the defendant for redeeming the jewels which were pledged with one T.C. Gajaraj Mehata of Madras on the promise that the jewels would be redeemed and the amount be paid back by repledging the jewels with some Bank at Chittoor. Thus, an amount of Rs.2,500.00, Rs.10,000.00and Rs.2,000.00 were given on 2-7-1971, 3-7-1971 and 3-7-1971 respectively totalling to Rs.14,500.00 which was acknowledged by a letter of the defendant in Ex.A.1 dated 3-7-1971. The defendant again borrowed/a further sum of Rs.1,000.00 on 5-7-1971, which was paid through cheque issued by the mother of the plaintiff. Though the defendant paid a sum of Rs.2,000.00 through a cheque drawn on the District Co-operative Central Bank, Chittoor, the balance amount of Rs.13,500.00 remained unpaid inspite of the demands made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit claim with interest at 6% per annum.

(3.) The defendant contested the claim on the allegation that the plaintiff had no capacity to pay money to others and the plaintiff and his mother were living together and that the plaintiffs mother is the owner of a printing press. The defendant earlier was due Rs.2,500.00 to the mother of the plaintiff and the mother of the plaintiff paid Rs.10,000.00 on 3-7-1971 and also Rs.2,000.00by way of a cheque. The payment made on 2-7-1971 was denied. The allegation that the plaintiff did lend any money to the defendant is totally denied. It was only for the purpose of income tax and on the request of the plaintiffs mother that the said letter in Ex.A.1 was given by the defendant. The plaintiffs mother paid only Rs.14,500.00 as after payment of Rs.10,000.00, she took Rs.1,000.00 in cash and she gave a cheque for the same. It was further contended that in respect of a suit in O.S.No.48 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chittoor, wherein the defendant was appearing for the plaintiff herein, the plaintiff herein on 21-7-1971 informed that the printing press is sought to be attached towards recovery of the money by the decree holder and, therefore, the defendant offered to the father of the decree holder therein a sum of Rs.12,000.00 and accordingly the suit amount was taken by him on 21-7-1971 which was acknowledged under a receipt by his daughter, which was handed over to the defendant. The defendant also sent Rs.1,300.00to one Rosi Naidu, an advocate on behalf of the plaintiff as per the request of the plaintiffs mother for the purpose of depositing and obtaining leave to defend the suit O.S.No.6284 of 1970 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. On 10-11-1971, a sum of Rs.2,000.00 was paid by cheque to the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiffs mother. On 27-11-1971 Rs.500.00 was paid to the plaintiff through his clerk. Thus by 27-11-1971, a sum of Rs.15,800.00 was paid and the entire debt was discharged paying an excess of Rs.1,300.00. The defendant requested for the return of the letter dated 27-11-1971 in Ex.A7 and accordingly the plaintiffs mother gave the better discharge of the even date on 3-7-1971. Therefore, the defendant is not liable to the suit amount. The suit is bad for non-joinder of parties and the plaintiff and his mother colluded together in view of some subsequent misunderstandings and filed the suit. The defendant therefore prayed that the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.