Ramaprasada Rao, J.-The learned Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Ootacamund, combined the two original suits, O.S.Nos. 222 of 1966 and 152 of 1968, and rendered a common judgment. It is not seriously disputed that though not expressly but by implication at least the two suits are connected. The parties agreed that the evidence recorded in O.S. No. 222 of 1966 may be taken as evidence in the other suit as well and reference to the parties in this judgment will, therefore, be with reference to O.S. No. 222 of 1966. A.S. No. 295 of 1970 is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower Court in O.S. No. 222 of 1966 and A.S. No. 294 of 1970 is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 152 of 1968. The defendant in O.S. No. 222 of 1966 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 152 of 1968 (one H. M. Kari Gowder; is the appellant in both the appeals.

2. We shall now trace the relevant facts independently in each of the suits and whenever necessary the collective facts in both the suits. The 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 222 of 1966 is a partnership firm and is represented by its managing partner S. A. K. Chinnathambi Chettiar who is also the second plaintiff therein. The defendant is a potato grower and businessman. The plaintiffs are dealers in Burmah Shell products besides being money-lenders. The course of dealings between the parties may be briefly stated thus. The defendant was a grower of potatoes and was dealing in them. He used to transport them to various places outside Nilgiris and he used to despatch such goods either by rail and present the railway receipt to the 2nd plaintiff and receive the value of potatoes by what is known in mercantile practice as discounting of bills and thereafter the railway receipt would be sent to its destination through a recognised bank. If the consignee fails to take the receipt by paying the value, necessary entries will be made in the accounts of the plaintiffs and the defendant would be debited with the said amount. But, if the consignee honours the railway receipt and pays for it then the credit entry in favour of the plaintiffs at the time of discount would automatically be wiped out by a debit entry as against it after the consignee honours the same. This course of conduct is reflected in the account books. The parties had such dealings ever since 1959 and in or about December, 1960 a sum of Rs. 50,026.03 became due and payable by the defendant to one or the other of the plaintiffs. An arrangement was thought of whereby the defendant was to secure the repayment of the aforesaid amount and, the parties contemplated to secure from the defendant a regular mortgage deed over his immoveable properties for which purpose the necessary non-judicial stamp to the value of Rs. 1,000 was purchased on 26th December, 1960. It is claimed that on 29th December, 1960 a memo-randum of deposit of title deeds was drawn up under Exhibit A-26 in which the upper limit of Rs. 50,000 which was fixed as the limit of borrowing of the defendant was made out. But, soon thereafter, after the year 1960, the plaintiffs’ case is that they advanced on three occasions under Exhibits A-11, A-12 and A-13 three sums of Rs. 5,500, Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 25,000 respectively and that in evidence of lending such cash necessary entries have teen made in the books kept by the plaintiffs in the regular course of business and the relevant entries evidencing such payment of cash is claimed to be Exhibits A-15, A-16 and A-17. We have already seen that there were regular business transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendant in connection with the potato trade of the defendant. But the plaintiffs’ case is that under Exhibits A-11, A-12 and A 13, they advanced cash to the defendant on the respective dates and these cash transactions were independent of the business dealings. In connection with the cash dealings, the plaintiffs’ case is that the defendant deposited the title deeds in relation to his immoveable properties at Sukkir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document