Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in O.S.No. 65 of 1945. That was a suit for recovering Rs. 13,013-14-11, the balance of principal, after giving credit to Rs. 930-8-0 paid on 14th November, 1944, and Rs. 556-13-4, the interest due on the promissory note, Exhibit P-1, executed by the defendant on 8th November 1944 for Rs. 13,710, the amount found due on taking of accounts on 8th November, 1944, in respect of the dealings between the plaintiff, Subbayya Chettiar and the defendant’s deceased son, Ramanathan Chettiar, and for Rs. 1,000 paid in cash on the date of the promissory note. The defence was that there was no settlement of accounts or taking of accounts on 8th November, 1944, that Rs. 1,000 in cash was not paid on that day, that the defendant did not execute Exhibit P-1 with the knowledge that it was a promissory note, and that her signature was obtained to Exhibit P-1 on the fraudulent representation that it was a document for taking a boy in adoption for her deceased son, Ramanathan Chettiar. It was also alleged that the defendant’s grandson, Ramanathan, was threatened by the plaintiff and his friends and pangalis with an adoption to the deceased, Ramanathan thereby depriving him and his brother, Shanmugam, of their expected reversion to the estate of the defendant’s son, Ramanathan, and that the defendant’s grandson, Ramanathan, therefore, obliged the plaintiff in bringing into existence the promissory note, Exhibit P-1, and getting it signed by the defendant, Muthayee Achi, the mother of the deceased Ramanathan. The learned Subordinate Judge, after discussing the entire evidence, found that the suit promissory note was true and was executed by the defendant, Muthayee Achi, with full knowledge of its contents. He found also that the accounts were looked into and settled on 8th November, 1944, before the execution of the promissory note, Exhibit P-1, as urged by the defendant, and that the suit promissory note was fully supported by consideration. He also held that the defendant’s contention that the endorsement of payment of Rs. 930-8-0 on Exhibit P-1 was not true, valid or binding on the defendant, was not sustainable, and that this payment and endorsement were true and that limitation would not operate even if this payment did not exist. In the result, he granted the plaintiff a decree as prayed for, but only as against the assets of the deceased Ramanatha in the hands of the defendant, as the evidence let in by the plaintiff himself showed that all the consideration under Exhibit P-1 represented only the debts of the deceased Ramantha, and so, should be recovered only from his assets in the hands of of the defendant. The defendant died pending the appeal, and one of her grandsons, Shanmugham, has been brought on record as her legal representative, the other grandson, Ramanthan Chetti, being added as the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent being the plaintiff.

We have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel on both sides. Mr. R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised three main contentions. The first was that the lower Court was wrong in brushing aside the question of the truth or otherwise of the settlement of accounts on 8th November, 1944, in all its details simply because a promissory note, Exhibit P-1, was executed, and the suit was based on it, and that it should have gone into the whole matter on the basis of a settlement of accounts and given its findings item by item. We cannot agree. All the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff said that the parties wanted to look into the accounts and settle them soon after Ramanathan’s death, and so brought the accounts on both sides and looked into them in the presence of seven or eight respectable people including P.Ws.1 to 4 and some of the D.Ws. like D.W.1. The plaintiff was admittedly a rich man worth 7 or 8 lakhs of rupees, and was a close frien

Click Here to Read the rest of this document