A MUTHUSWAMI AYYAR Vs. PBLOGANATHA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 against a decree in ejectment passed against them, in respect of the properties specified in Schedule A to the plaint and directing payment of a small sum of money representing the price of easuarina trees admittedly cut by them. Defendant 1 having died pending the appeal his son defendant 2 is continuing the appeal so far as the. legal title to the A schedule properties is concerned; the appellants claim title to it under Ex. 23 executed by the Official Assignee of Madras, on 27 March 1925, representing the estate of one Sadagopa Chetti.

(2.) The properties admittedly belonged, originally to one Shanmuga Mudali, father of defendants 4 and 5. This Shanmuga had entered into an agreement with Sadagopa, in January 1921, to sell these properties and also certain movables, for a total consideration of Rs. 15,000. Shanmuga had already borrowed Rs. 4,000 from Sadagopa on 14 January 1921 and given a promissory note therefor, Ex. 10-B. The evidence in the. case shows that Sadagopa had received a sum of Rs. 10,000 in December 1920 from plaintiff 1, Balakrishna; and having regard to the evidence as to the absence of other resources of Sadagopa, it is not unlikely that the sum of Rs. 4,000 lent to Shanmuga on 14 January 1921 came out of the Rs. 10,000 which Sadagopa had borrowed from Balakrishna. It is Balakrishna's ease that when this Rs. 10,000 was borrowed from him by Sadagopa, the latter had agreed to give by way of security certain lands which he was negotiating to purchase. It would however appear that at the date of the alleged loan he was thinking not of the plaint lands but of some lands in a place called Aruvam-bakkam. When however the Rs. 10,000 was not repaid and no security executed, Balakrishna filed a suit in April 1921 against Sadagopa (O.S. No. 417 of 1921, on the file of this Court), claiming that Sadagopa might be directed to perform his agreement in favour of the plaintiff by executing a mortgage deed for Rupees 10,000 over "some suitable property belonging to him if he is possessed of any such property."

(3.) When Sadagopa agreed to purchase the A schedule properties and other movables from Shanmuga for a sum of Rs. 15,000 he had to find the means to make up the purchase money; and he seems to have borrowed moneys from defendant 1 (who was a pleader at Poonamalee). The evidence shows that on 27 January 1921, defendant 1 advanced to Sadagopa about Rs. 5,000 (or Rs. 5,250) and it is not unlikely, as defendant 1 deposes, that the payment of Rs. 5,000 made to Shanmuga on 27 January 1921 in connexion with this arrangement of purchase was made out of the moneys received from defendant 1. The receipt Ex. 10-A dated 27 January 1921 purports to be a consolidated receipt for Rs. 9,000 in respect of that sale transaction, the Rs. 9,000 having been made up of Rs. 4,000 due under the promissory note dated 14 the January 1921 and the Rs. 5,000 received on 27 January 1921.