One of several joint contractors cannot keep the debt alive and subsisting against the other joint debtors by reason only of a written acknowledgment signed or a payment made by himself.

CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are against the decree in O. S. No. 173 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Commercial and Industrial Bank Ltd. , is the plaintiff. There are seven defendants in the suit. The suit is filed to recover a sum of H. S. Rs. 22,0606-8-0, which is equivalent to I. G. Rs. from the defendants. The plaintiffs case is that on 29-7-46, the defendants borrowed. I. G. Rs. 25,000. 00 from the plaintiff bank promising to pay the same with interest at 1% per month and executed a promissory note and a receipt making themselves jointly and severally liable for the amount. In a paragraph 5 of the plaint. it is alleged that the defendants paid certain on several times, the last payment being made on 18-1-51, and the balance due as per the extract of the loan account filed with the plaint being Rs. 18,908-14-6. In paragraph 7 of the plaint it is stated that, as the last payment was made on 18-151 and some letters have been sent to the bank accepting the balance and promising to pay the amount due the suit is within time and that the said letters would be filed afterwards, if necessary.

( 2 ) THE 1st defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note, but disputed the correctness of the amount on the ground that all the payments made by the other defendants are not shown in it. he also pleaded that the rate of interest charged is in contravention of the provisions of the Hyderabad Money lenders Act, 1349 fasli. It is also pleaded the promissory note is not duly stamped and is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence and that the suit cannot be maintained on the basis of it. it was further pleaded that the 1st defendant did not make any payments personally, but simply passed on the money paid by some of the other defendants. Therefore, the said payments do not save limitation as against him. it appears that, at the request of the 1st defendant, better particulars were furnished by the plaintiff on 14-4-54. In that statement of the better particulars the plaintiff stated that the 1st defendant had made payments on various dates in his personal capacity and as the agent of the other defendants. it was also stated therein that the 1st defendant sent two letters to the plaintiff dated 27th may and June 1953 in which he accepted the balance and promised to pay the amount due and that, in view of these payments and letters, the suit is in time against defendant No. 1 The dates of the payments also were given in the statement of better particulars. The written statement of the 1st defendant was subsequently filed on 22-4-54 in which it is also asserted that the two letters dated 27th May and June 1953, which the plaintiff calls acknowledgments, are not acknowledgments, they do not save limitation. Some other pleas were also taken; but it is not unnecessary to refer to them.

( 3 ) THE 2nd defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note, but denied that the she narrowed Rs. 25,000. 00 she denied that she made any payments as alleged in the plaint. In any view she submitted that the suit amount is mostly made up of compound interest calculated at a usurious and unconscionable rate. she executed the promissory note only as a surety for the 1st defendant and the plaintiff agreed to recover the full amount only from the 1st defendant. The claim is barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE 3rd defendant pleaded that Viswanath Rao, who signed the plaint a s Manager of the Plaintiff bank, was not competent to sign it and was not competent to file the suit. The execution of the promissory note was admitted. The entire amount was paid to the 1st defendant with the knowledge that he was the managing partner of the firm. In paragraph 4 of his written statement , he pleaded that he joined in the execution of the promissory note on the insistence of the bank under a special settlement between the parties that each of the defendants would individually pay to the plaintiff-bank his respective share am

Click Here to Read the rest of this document