(RACHAKONDA) NARAYANAMURTI Vs. DARMANA RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover from defendant 1 and his son defendant 2 Rs. 3,740 due on a promissory note executed by them in favour of defendant 3. Defendants endorsed the note in favour of the plaintiff who is his son-in-law. The contesting defendants pleaded want of consideration for the promissory note and also for the transfer in favour of the plaintiff. The two issues in the case were: (1) Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration; and (2) "Whether the endorsement of transfer is genuine and supported by consideration. On these issues both the Courts found that the consideration for the suit note was, as alleged by the plaintiff, the withdrawal of the sale deed, Ex. E, from registration and that the transfer of the suit promissory note was not for consideration. The learned Subordinate Judge on these findings gave a decree to the plaintiff treating him as a transferee for collection. Though the promissory note was found to be supported by consideration the learned District Judge declined to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff because he held having regard to the facts disclosed in the evidence, that: the sole consideration for the suit pronote was an undertaking to forgo the fruits of systematic procuration, and this is not a form of consideration that any Court can take cognizance of.

(2.) In the last paragraph of the judgment he says: I find that the consideration for the suit pronote was nil, and that it was obtained by a disgraceful kind of blackmail.

(3.) His opinion apparently was that the history of the transaction which led to the execution of the promissory note showed that the real consideration for the promissory note was immoral and therefore the suit was not enforceable. In this view he set aside the decree of the Sub-Judge and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. To understand the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge a few facts have to be mentioned and they are referred to in detail in the third and succeeding paragraphs of the appellate judgment. It would appear that defendant 1 is a rich raiyat and that defendant 2 is an young man addicted to drink and women and that defendant 3 gaining control over him by pandering to his weakness, persuaded him, to execute a sale deed in his favour, Ex. E, for Rs. 9,000. The document recites that a sum of Rs. 3,000 had been paid in cash to defendant 2 and that the balance of Rs. 6,000 would be paid at the time of registration. Defendant 3 is a pleader. When the document was presented for registration by his clerk, defendant.2 objected, alleging that it was executed by undue influence and while he was under the influence of drink and also that the consideration of Rs. 3,000 had not been paid. The document was therefore returned unregistered. During the inquiry before the Registrar a compromise was arranged between the parties at the intercession of one Venkateswarulu, a pleader, and defendants 1 and 2 executed the suit, note, Ex. A, for Rs. 2,750 in favour of defendant 3 and he then withdrew the suit deed without pressing for its registration. It was in these circumstances that the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the suit note was unenforceable. His reasoning may be put in his own words: What after all was the consideration for the suit pronote? Defendant 3 in Ex. E says that he paid defendant 2 Rs. 3,000 in cash. Defendant 2 denied this in Ex. 2. If it were true, then I do not see why defendant 3 was willing to accept a pronote for Rs. 2,750 and give up in return not only his own Rs. 3,000, but also the chance of buying valuable property. The fact that the property was valued and coveted is shown by the circumstances that Ex. E has not yet been returned." I am not satisfied that there was any consideration for the first sale deed Ex. E, other than housing defendant 2 and procuring for him women and drink. If this is so, then the sole consideration for the suit pronote was an undertaking to forgo the fruits of systematic procuration, and this is not a form of consideration that any Court can take cognizance of. From the history of the transactions between defendants 3 and 2, I have no hesitation in believing the evidence of D.W. 1, viz., that the only consideration for Ex. E was an immoral one and in disbelieving the recital in Ex. 3 that it was a cash transaction. Defendant 3 has not given any evidence in this case and he was at pains to avoid doing so.