ANANT KRISHNA MODAK Vs. SARASVATIBAI PADMANABH SHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case sued the defendants on a promissory note dated August 20, 1920, for Rs. 1,200. The note was passed under the following circumstances : The plaintiff had given Rs. 800 and some gold to Padmanabh, the husband of defendant No. 1, who was a goldsmith, in order that he might prepare certain ornaments. Padmanabh did not make the ornaments, and consequently, some three weeks later, the plaintiff obtained the suit promissory note which is signed by Padmanabh and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are said to be his cousins. Subsequently, Padmanabh died and the plaintiff brought the present suit against defendant No. 1, who is Padmanabh's widow, and defendants Nos. 8 and 3 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Honavar.

(2.) The execution of the promissory note was and is admitted, and an issue about consideration was raised in the first Court and it was found that there was consideration, The defendants raised the plea of coercion but that has now been given up. The first Court, therefore, passed a decree a for Rs. 1,572 with costs and future interest at six per cent, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased Padmanabh in the hands of defendant No. 1 and from defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The suit as against defendant No. 4 was dismissed.

(3.) Defendant No. 1, who is the widow of Padmanabh, did appeal against this decree, but defendants Nos. 2 and 3 did. In Baker J. appeal the question of consideration was raised, and the District Judge of Kanara held in a lengthy judgment that the promissory note was void for want of consideration. He, therefore, set aside the judgment of the first Court and dismissed the suit altogether although defendant No. 1 had not appealed against the decree.