MALLAVARAPU NARASAMMA Vs. BOGGAVARAPU BULLI VEERRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of suits instituted by different plaintiffs against the same defendant, for varying sums of money claimed to be due under promissory notes executed by the defendants. As the defence was to a certain extent common to all the suits they were tried together and the whole evidence for the defendants was recorded in O.S. No. 42 of 1927 (A.S. No. 250 of 1930). In two of the suits, the defendant admitted receipt of small sums and to that extent those suits were decreed; the other two suits were dismissed.

(2.) The defendant is the youngest son of a rich Vysia family of Cocanada. Born in July 1907 he was married in 1921 into a rich family of Akkiveedu and his wife joined him early in 1925. Nevertheless, in the course of 1926, he seems to have taken to bad ways, with the help and under the evil influence of two of his father's dismissed clerks - Bhaskara Row and Majeti Venkataramana - and one Immidi Sooryam, the husband of a deceased sister. The transactions which led to these suits took place between September 1926 a May, 1927, and as the lower Court points out, the defendant must, according to the tenor of these pro-notes, have borrowed more than Rs. 23,000 (Rupees twenty-three-thousand) in the course of about eight months. The father and the brothers of the defendant had been doing their best to wean him from, his bad ways and the defence to the present suit is admittedly conducted by them. The issues as originally framed threw the burden of proof on the defendant, as his plea amounted to denial of consideration but at a later stage, an additional issue was framed in the following terms. Whether there are circumstances in the case which in law would shift the burden of proving consideration for the pro-notes, on the plaintiffs."

(3.) There was some further discussion, before the trial commenced, and the learned Judge ruled that the defendant, should adduce evidence on the whole case and then the plaintiff will be allowed to adduce his evidence. The defendant will not be allowed to adduce further evidence after the plaintiff closes his case - (but he may) ask the Court that from the circumstances that may be proved in the case, the plaintiff should bear the burden of establishing the consideration for the suit notes. An issue of fraud and undue influence was also-raised, but at an early stage of the case, counsel for the defendant seems to have intimated that he relied on fraud and undue influence only as reasons for executing the suit pro-notes and that his main plea was that defendant received little or no consideration for the- promissory notes. A mass of evidence, oral and documentary, has been produced on behalf of the defendant, to prove the course of life led by him during these eight months and the attempts of the elder members of the family to get at him and save him. Though some remarks have been made against the genuineness or reliability of portions of this documentary evidence, nothing seems to have been said against them in the Court below and such portions of the correspondence as consist of postcards are absolutely above criticism. It-does not seem to us necessary to examine, this part of the evidence in detail, as we find no difficulty in accepting the summary of its result, as set out in para 21 of the lower Court's judgment in O.S. No. 42 of 1927.