P CHENGALVARAYA MUDALY Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have had some difficulty in getting at the facts in this case, but as I understand them and so far as they are material to the question we have to decide, they are these.

(2.) In August 1906 the insolvents entered into a contract with the appellant that he was to do certain shipping work for them for two years certain, that he was to receive an advance of Rs. 2,000 for which he was to execute two promissory-notes in favour of the insolvents, and that the notes were to be met out of the amounts due to the appellant under his agreement. The advance was received and the notes were executed.

(3.) Suits were brought against the appellant on the promissory-notes. He set up the agreement of August 1906 by way of defence. Two decrees were obtained against the appellant on the notes in the Small Cause Court, one in Suit No. 11 and the other in Suit No. 12. The appellant asked for a reference under Section 69 of the Small Cause Courts Act in Suit No. 11 and paid into Court under Section 70 of the Act Rs. 1,060, the amount of the judgment and costs. The High Court declined to express an opinion and in August 1908 the contingent judgment in Suit No. 11 was made final and there was a final decree against the appellant in Suit No. 12.