MADDULA KASI VISWANADHAM Vs. CHALASANI RADHAKRISHNARAO
LAWS(APH)-1972-4-12
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 20,1972

MADDULA KASI VISWANADHAM Appellant
VERSUS
CHALASANI RADHAKRISHNARAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This Second Appeal is by the defendant in O.S. 39/69 on the file of the Pri. District Munsif. Eluru against the judgment of the District Judge. West Godavari, confirming in appeal the decree passed in the suit by the trial Court.
(2.) The suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs.4,191-89 being the balance due on Pronote executed by the defendant on 30-3-1957. The plaintiff contended that he was the partner of Choudhary Jewellery Mart along with one K. Narayanarao, that the defendant borrowed some monies for his agricultural purposes from the firm; that on accounts being looked into it was found that he wad due a sum of Rs. 1,860-14-0 and from this sum he executed the promissory note in his favour as per the arrangement between him and his partners and thereafter the defendant had paid three sums of Rs.10.00, 10/- and 300/- and the balance is due and hence the suit.
(3.) The defendant contended that he had not received any amount from the plaintiff, that the debt due by him was the Choudhary Jewellery Mart and the plaintiff alone has no right to file the suit on the basis of the suit promissory note. He further contended that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs.1,100.00 from the firm. Choudhary Jewellery Mart; that though there was no agreement for payment of interest it was calculated and included and the suit promissory note was executed for Rs.1,860-14-0 and that the interest is therefore not liable to be paid. He further contended that he is an agriculturist and the debt has to be scaled down, that the plaintiff had taken on lease some grazing land from him and on that account he had to pay for two different period a sum of Rs.500.00 and 250/- that he had also paid on behalf of the plaintiff a sum of Rs.80.00 to Kamas of Kovvali for raising fencing for 50 acres of his land and for watching charges, that these amount had been agreed to be adjusted towards the debt due on the promissory note and be is also entitled to count interest on the same.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.