NARAYAN MAHADEO DURVE Vs. MOTI PANNAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued the defendants on a promissory note for Rs. 4,500 executed on August 12, 1925. Execution was admitted, but agricultural status and lack of consideration was pleaded by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge held that consideration was proved, and gave the plaintiffs a decree for the amount claimed, and the appeal contests the correctness of this decision.

(2.) The facts are really all admitted. Defendants father and separated brother had executed two promissory notes, jointly, one in favour of plaintiffs firm and the other in that of a second firm named Chimanlal. The creditors sued on the notes in the High Court and ultimately got decrees for Rs. 7,143 and Rs. 2,380 respectively. Defendants father had died pendente lite : defendants had been made parties as his legal representatives ; and had pleaded they were agriculturists and that the High Court had no jurisdiction ; and the two suits against them had been withdrawn with leave to bring fresh ones in the proper Court.

(3.) After this, as the decree-holders were threatening to execute against the defendants separated brother, who was paralysed, the defendants came to a compromise. They executed a promissory note for Rs. 4,500 and in return for this sum, which represented about half the value of the two decrees, the plaintiffs undertook to make over the two decrees to them. As the creditor in the second decree refused a settlement except on a cash payment, the plaintiffs paid him Rs. 1,000 and he was thus satisfied. The defendants father's promissory note was returned to the defendants.