VARADARAJULU CHETTY Vs. VELAYUDA UDAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the first of these cases, the plaintiff brought a suit on a, promissory note, dated 15 June, 1916, executed by one Balakrishna Chetty, deceased, to Appudayan the deceased adoptive father of the plaintiff. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, holding that the discharge alleged to be evidenced by Exhibit I was proved.

(2.) The question was raised in this case, as also in the connected S.A. No. 1700 of 1923, whether the plaintiff was in fact the adopted son of Appudayan, and by consent, the evidence on this point taken in the other ease was treated as evidence in this case before the District Munsif was contended by Mr. V.C. Seshachariar, for the appellant, that such a proceeding is wrong in law and that the vakils have no power to bind their clients by such a consent. The matter is, however, concluded by the Full Bench ruling in Jainab Bibi Saheba V/s. Hyderally Sahib (1920) 43 Mad. 609, that the evidence recorded in a previous judicial proceeding, between the same parties is made admissible in a subsequent proceeding, by the consent of both parties. The suits were heard on the same day, and although the defendants were not the same in the other case, the question of adoption was common to the two oases and all the parties concerned presumably let in their evidence, at one and the same time. As Coutts-Trotter, J., (as he then was) held in the case referred to: Consent can cure what would otherwise be a defective method of letting in evidence in its substance and context relevant and germane to the issues.

(3.) Both the Courts, on the evidence of adoption given in the other case, came to the conclusion that the adoption was true.