Judgment.-This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of the amount due under a promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 2nd March, 1948, for Rs. 2,750 payable with interest at 9 per. cent per annum. The answer of the defendants was that although they had executed the promissory note it was unenforceable on account of an agreement in bar of the suit, which they detailed as follows in their written statement:

"(2) The plaintiff along with Rudrakoti Mudaliar, Kuppuswami Mudaliar and Arumuga Mudaliar are carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of Ganapathi Palaighat Company. They owned a casuarina tope planted on land belonging to the local temple. The first defendant is carrying on business in firewood in Madras and the second defendant is only working under him. In or about February, 1948, the plaintiff and his partners agreed to sell the tope to the first defendant for Rs. 7,750 with an advance of Rs. 500. At this time there was considerable dispute between the trustees of the temple and the villagers that land belonging to the temple was leased out for a nominal rent in the name of a son of one of the trustees and they sub-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document