DUGGEMPUDI NAGAMMA Vs. TIRUMALA REDDI VENKATA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Paminathan Chetty v. Palaniappa Chetty 26 Ind. Cas. 228 : 41 I.A. 142 : 18 C.W.N. 617 : 17 New Law Reports 56 : (1914) A.C. 618 : 83 L.J.P.C. 131 : 110 L.T. 918 quoted for the respondents only shows that the claim on a promissory note, given for an existing liability is based on a different cause of action from that on the said existing liability. It does not decide that a plaint cannot include both such claims in the alternative. If a plaintiff sues on one of such causes of action and the right to sue thereon is not free from doubt, it is always open to the Court (and in my opinion, it is desirable to do so to put an end to litigation as far as possible) to direst the plaintiff to amend the plaint, so as to convert it into a suit baaed on both causes of action, or treat it as so amended, and then to decide the suit once for all.

(2.) The Court of first instance in this case held that no note was ever executed and hence it decreed the claim of the plaintiff based on the original cause of action alone.

(3.) The lower Appellate Court held that a promissory note was executed for the debt and hence the plaintiff s suit based solely on the original cause of action ought to be dismissed. It refused to go into the question whether more than Rupees 300 has been paid towards the plaintiff s claim whether based on the original cause of action or on the promissory note.