Skip to content


T.K. Ramachandra Rao Vs. Jomalagadda Ramaswami - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad53; (1942)2MLJ420
AppellantT.K. Ramachandra Rao
RespondentJomalagadda Ramaswami
Excerpt:
- .....on a promissory note. the promissory note was admittedly made up entirely of interest on three previous debts. with reference to two of these debts the lower court has granted relief on the basis that the promissory note is merely an embodiment of the interest on these debts. with reference to the other debt which is a mortgage debt ex. ii, the lower court has refused to grant relief because the security for ex. ii is house property within a union panchayat coming within section 4 (d) of act iv of 1938. it seems to me that the view taken by the lower court is correct.2. the petitioner was not content to stand by the promissory note as the contract but wished to treat the promissory 'note as nothing more than a settlement of account under the previous mortgage transactions. by this.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. The petitioner was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note. The promissory note was admittedly made up entirely of interest on three previous debts. With reference to two of these debts the lower Court has granted relief on the basis that the promissory note is merely an embodiment of the interest on these debts. With reference to the other debt which is a mortgage debt Ex. II, the lower Court has refused to grant relief because the security for Ex. II is house property within a union panchayat coming within Section 4 (d) of Act IV of 1938. It seems to me that the view taken by the lower Court is correct.

2. The petitioner was not content to stand by the promissory note as the contract but wished to treat the promissory 'note as nothing more than a settlement of account under the previous mortgage transactions. By this process the promissory note is, in fact, treated as a mere statement of the interest on the previous transactions. When it is shown that one of these previous transactions is excluded from the operation of the Act by Section 4 (d), it seems to me to follow that the promissory note cannot be scaled down as a renewal of that transaction in so far as it embodies the interest therein. There was no prayer that to the extent of the interest on Ex. II the promissory note should be scaled down under Section 9 of the Act. I therefore do not propose to go into that contention.

3. The revision petition is dismissed with costs.


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