KANDREGULA ANANTHA RAO PANTULU Vs. KANDIKONDA SURAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I cannot agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in his view that the plaintiff is debarred from recovering the advance made by him for the mere reason that Exhibit A (the contract deed) and Exhibit A(1), in which the receipt of the advance was acknowledged, were written on the same piece of paper and that a material alteration of one would affect the other with the taint of fraud.

(2.) In my opinion the defendant is bound to refund any advance taken by him, whether the contract is void or voidable and rescinded. In one case Section 65 of the Contract Act applies, in the other Section 64.

(3.) There is no question now of performing the contract. First defendant does not want to perform it and he may be treated as having rescinded it, as he set up in his written statement another arrangement by which the original contract had been superseded. In fact the 1st defendant in his written statement, paragraph 10, did not deny his liability to refund the advance of Rs. 1,200, but he alleged that satisfaction had been given as regards Rs. 500 and that only Rs. 700 remained to be paid.