Skip to content


Saladi Pichayya Vs. A. Venkata Suryanarayana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Mad410a
AppellantSaladi Pichayya
RespondentA. Venkata Suryanarayana
Cases ReferredNarayana Chettiar v. Veera Gounder A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....relates to the extent to which the scaling down process can be carried. the decree was a compromise decree which provided for the payment of the full amount of the suit claim with interest and costs, the agreement only relating to the instalments in which it was to be paid and the security to be given. the decree was based on a promissory note of 1930 which included a sum of rs. 1346 odd cash and an amount of rs. 7653-2-9 due on an earlier promissory note, ex. p-9a executed in 1928 for rs. 6344-5-3. this promissory note itself was the result of a partition in the debtors' family whereby defendant 1 became liable for half the debts of the family and he executed the note ex. p-9a in respect of his half share of three separate family debts. it seems clear that the integrity of.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. These two appeals are preferred, the former by the creditors and latter by the debtors, against an order on an application under Section 19, Madras Act 4 of 1938. In the light of the amended Act the appeals have to be treated as Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, and petitions have been filed for their conversion and the refund of excess court-fee which must be allowed. The only point in the creditors' appeal (A.A.O. No. 73 of 1944-App. No. 189 of 1942) which deserves serious consideration relates to the extent to which the scaling down process can be carried. The decree was a compromise decree which provided for the payment of the full amount of the suit claim with interest and costs, the agreement only relating to the instalments in which it was to be paid and the security to be given. The decree was based on a promissory note of 1930 which included a sum of Rs. 1346 odd cash and an amount of Rs. 7653-2-9 due on an earlier promissory note, Ex. P-9a executed in 1928 for Rs. 6344-5-3. This promissory note itself was the result of a partition in the debtors' family whereby defendant 1 became liable for half the debts of the family and he executed the note Ex. P-9a in respect of his half share of three separate family debts. It seems clear that the integrity of these anterior debts was broken by this process of partition and that the debts incurred by defendant 1 after partition in respect of the total of the three half debts allotted to him must be treated as a fresh obligation. This matter is covered by one of the cases quoted by the learned Subordinate Judge, viz., Rumasubbier v. Rama Ayyar A.I.R. 1941 Mad 356, but the learned Judge has overlooked the rule relating to this matter in that case. It follows then that the debt has to be scaled down to the principal of the note Ex. P-9a together with the subsequent cash advanced under Ex. P-9 and costs.

2. The debtors' appeal raises a question regarding liability for costs. The argument is based on a misunderstanding of our decision in Narayana Chettiar v. Veera Gounder A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 133. We are not concerned here, as we were in that case, with the appropriation of payments in the first instance towards costs. The debtors have sought to scale down this compromise decree on the theory that it was in {substance a renewal of a previous liability under the promissory note. For this purpose it is necessary for them to differentiate between the amount of the compromise decree representing costs and the amount of the compromise decree representing the debt with interest thereon. It is absurd for them to contend that the liability for costs has been extinguished. It is only because the amount of costs can be ascertained that they are able to go back to the antecedent debt. The result, therefore , is that (A.A.O. No. 73 of 1944-App. No. 189 of 1942) is allowed with costs and for the figure of Rs. 5105-8-3 appearing in the lower Court's decree will be substituted the figure of Rs. 7691-2-6. (A.A.O. No. 74 of 1944-App. No. 255 of 1942) is dismissed with costs.


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