GOPALA PADAYACHI Vs. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is against the judgment and decree of the lower Court in Small Cause suit. The suit was inter alia for money due on a promissory note in the following circumstances: On 8 November 1921 the first defendant executed a promissory note, Ex. A, to one Subba Nayakar. On 30 October 1924 Rs. 235 was due on this note. For this amount the 1 defendant executed a fresh promissory note, Ex. B, in favour of the same promisse. Both the notes have been transferred to the plaintiff.

(2.) The main point in the case was whether Ex. B was enforceable as a promissory note. It is admittedly insufficiently stamped under the amended Stamp Act, as it bears only an one-anna stamp. The lower Court, however, has admitted it in evidence as an acknowledgment of the debt in Ex. A, for which purpose it is sufficiently stamped, has held that it serves to keep the debt alive, and has given judgment for the sum claimed. The defendants put in this Civil Revision Petition and contend that the lower Court has erred in law in holding this view.

(3.) Three main contentions have been argued before me: (1) that Ex. B was inadmissible for any purpose, (2) that even assuming that it is admissible as an acknowledgment of the debts in Ex. A, that debt has been discharged and therefore no claim can be founded on it; and (3) that even taking the Subordinate Judge's view that the suit can be founded on the debt in Ex. A, the amount decreed is too large. A subsidiary contention of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are sons of the 1 defendant is that they are not liable for the debt as it was not for family purposes.