Kumarayya, J. -
(1.) The plaintiff, a Bank duly constituted under the Hyderabad Companies Act, 1320-F. is the appellant. Its suit on the foot of a promissory note of 22nd January, 1955, executed by the defendant, W. D. Paul, for a sum of Rs. 1,05,359-3-10, has been dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that, there were money dealings between the parties which had started from 1946. The defendant paid back some amounts and on 22nd January, 1955, after looking into the accounts, he executed the suit promissory note, Exhibit A-3, for the amount found due. He even addressed a letter, Exhibit A-5, to the plaintiff, admitting his liability for the said sum. But notwithstanding several demands, he chose to make no payment thereafter. A legal notice was at last issued on 15th September, 1957 (Exhibit A-7). In his reply, Exhibit A-8, dated 23rd September, 1957, he simply acknowledged his liability, but failed to pay the amount. The plaintiff consequently brought the suit for Rs. 1,33,857-88 no. The defendant in his written statement admitted execution of the promissory note. This time he disputed the right of the plaintiff to claim any amount under the suit promissory note. His written statement, filed on 11th March, 1958, shows three important landmarks in the history of his transactions with the plaintiff.
(3.) The first stage starts with Anantagiri Electrification contract. The defendant's case is that, he secured a contract from the Government, at Anantagiri at an estimated cost of H. S. Rs. 45,000. He was in need of money for this venture and, therefore, approached Prof. Kishenchand, the managing director and sole proprietor of the plaintiff-Bank to finance the work on partnership basis. The said proprietor agreed and eventually a partnership agreement, Exhibit B-3, was executed between the plaintiff-Bank and the defendant on 22nd Februrary, 1946 Under the said agreement, the original of which is alleged to be in the possession of the plaintiff-Bank, it was settled between the parties that the plaintiff would open an account in the name of "Anantagiri Electrification contract" which would be operated by W. D. Paul the defendant herein ; that the plaintiff-Bank shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000 in that account and that it would be entitled to a share of 50 per cent in the profits. It would of course have some control over the expenditure which may be incurred by the defendant. In pursuance of these terms of contract, it is said that a current account in the name of Anantagiri Electrification contract was opened in the account of the Bank and was duly operated by the defendant. The moneys due from the Government used to be received by the plaintiff-Bank, which was, it is said, bound to render account for the same to the defendant. The further case of the defendant is that, whenever a cheque was drawn by him (the defendant) against the partnership account, the plaintiff-Bank used to take from him a promissory note duly executed. Not only this, the Bank took away and appropriated all the equipment and materials which were left over after execution of the contract. It never cared to settle accounts in spite of several demands. This marks the first mile-stone in the dealings between the plaintiff-Bank and the defendant.;