TUNUGUNTLA BRAHMAYYA Vs. SANGAM RAMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Munsif has found that the suit document, a promissory note, was not executed on the date it bears and that it was not executed by the 2nd defendant or with her consent. He has, therefore, dismissed the suits, holding that the plaintiff cannot get a decree against the 1st defendant either. THE 1st defendant was examined as plaintiff s 6th witness in the case and made the admission that he and the 2nd defendant executed the note to plaintiff and that he received the amount. It is contended in these circumstances that the lower Court ought to have passed a decree against the 1st defendant upon his admission. For the respondent the case of Amirtham Pillai v. Nanjah Gounden 23 Ind. Cas. 464 : 26 M.L.J. 257 : 15 M.L.T. 205 : (1914) M.W.N. 250 : 1 L.W. 243 and the decision of Miller, J., in Civil Revision Petition No. 601 of 1912 therein referred to are specifically relied upon. I think these cases must be distinguished from the present on the ground that it appears from the judgment of Sadasiva Aiyar, J., in the former case that the defendant sought to be made liable had agreed to be liable only if the other, defendant was also jointly made liable (a condition which does not appear to exist in this case) and also on the ground that in neither of the cases referred to was there any such admission of execution by both defendants and receipt of consideration as there is in this case by the 1st defendant. In face of that admission I do not see how the 1st defendant can now be heard to say that there has been a material alteration of the suit note so as to relieve him from his liability thereunder. I shall, therefore, modify the decree of the lower Court by giving the plaintiff a decree as against the 1st defendant with interest at 6 per cent, up to the date of payment and with costs here and in the lower Court. Petitioner will pay 2nd respondent s costs, the petition being dismissed as against her.