Skip to content


Kuntamukkala Venkateswara Rao Vs. Sree Raja Kunduru Lakshmikantharao Bahadur Zamindar Garu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad638; (1941)1MLJ633
AppellantKuntamukkala Venkateswara Rao
RespondentSree Raja Kunduru Lakshmikantharao Bahadur Zamindar Garu and ors.
Cases ReferredMadras v. Zamindar of Kirlampudi
Excerpt:
.....which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. - 830 that a decree on a promissory note for arrears of rent is a decree for a debt and not a decree for rent and that it is to be scaled down under sections 9 and 19 and not under section 15. an attempt has been made to distinguish that decision on the ground that it related to a decree, whereas, here, we are concerned with a suit on a promissory note to which a plea of failure of consideration may be raised......fallacious. the basis of our decision was that on the taking of the note the character of the liability changed and that it ceased to be rent. granted that the promissory note would operate only as a conditional discharge of the liability for rent and that if it was found to be defective the promisee might (if it was not barred) fall back on the original right to claim rent, i do not think that it follows that the debtor can compel the promisee to treat his claim as one for rent whereas in fact it is nothing of the kind, or that he can treat the note which was in substitution for a liability for rent as being without consideration, because a claim based on the liability for rent, which has not been made, would be met by a defence under section 15. in this view i dismiss the petition.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. Petitioner contended in defence to a suit on a promissory note that the amount was not due because it represented rent which must be deemed to be discharged by reason of Section 15 of Act IV of 1938. A Bench of which I was a member held in Ramadoss Reddiar v. Munuswami Reddiar : AIR1941Mad116 , following The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Zamindar of Kirlampudi (1931) 63 M.L.J. 20 : I.L.R.1931 Mad. 830 that a decree on a promissory note for arrears of rent is a decree for a debt and not a decree for rent and that it is to be scaled down under Sections 9 and 19 and not under Section 15. An attempt has been made to distinguish that decision on the ground that it related to a decree, whereas, here, we are concerned with a suit on a promissory note to which a plea of failure of consideration may be raised. The distinction made is, in my opinion, fallacious. The basis of our decision was that on the taking of the note the character of the liability changed and that it ceased to be rent. Granted that the promissory note would operate only as a conditional discharge of the liability for rent and that if it was found to be defective the promisee might (if it was not barred) fall back on the original right to claim rent, I do not think that it follows that the debtor can compel the promisee to treat his claim as one for rent whereas in fact it is nothing of the kind, or that he can treat the note which was in substitution for a liability for rent as being without consideration, because a claim based on the liability for rent, which has not been made, would be met by a defence under Section 15. In this view I dismiss the petition with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //