M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.
1. This simple small cause proceeding, which is the substance of the revision, nevertheless involves one question of some interest. The suit was an apparently simple one for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 336-45 alleged to be due on dealings, and instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant (revision, petitioner). Both parties agreed that there were dealings, but the case of the defendant was that nothing was due.
2. Point No. 1, as framed by the learned District Munsif, was whether the amount of Rs. 278-65 was due from the defendant to the plaintiff. On this aspect, the trial Court categorically comes to the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff cannot be accepted, and cannot be regarded as true. But, even on the case which was common to the parties, on the dealings, there would be an amount of Rs. 145-75 to be paid by the defendant. The defendant swore that he repaid this entire amount on 2nd October, 1965, and relied on a slip Exhibit B-1, to show that the amount was due and was repaid.
3. At this stage, the plaintiff seems to have abandoned the original basis of his claim, and sought to recover Rs. 145-75 alone, on the slip Exhibit B-1. He attempted to amend the plaint, with regard to this matter, by introducing a new paragraph, as paragraph 6 (a), with the necessary averments. The learned District Munsif,, in a brief order, held the application to be belated, and also to change the character of the suit and to introduce a new cause of action. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
4. As I pointed out earlier, the learned District Munsif finally did not accept the case of the plaintiff. But he took up for consideration the case of the defendant that a sum of Rs. 145-75 was due on dealings between the parties, and that the defendant paid this sum on 2nd October, 1965, as claimed by defendant on Exhibit B-1. The learned District Munsif thought that the Last entry in Exhibit B-1 relating to payment, was probably not in the writing of the plaintiff and, further,, that it had been struck out. Hence, on a partial acceptance of the case of the defendant, the learned District Munsif decreed the suit for Rs. 145-75. The defendant has filed this revision petition against this decree.
5. This raises the interesting question, whether, when the case of the plaintiff is rejected by a trial Court, on merits, in a substantial sense, the Court can nevertheless afford relief on the basis of the version of the defendant. Long ago, the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court pointed out in Ramdoyal v. Junmenjoy Coondoo I.L.R. (1887) Cal. 791, that it would certainly be very unusual to permit a plaintiff, who has alleged one state of facts as against the defendant, who has denied that case and alleged another state of facts, to turn round and ask to be allowed to carry on the suit and claim relief on the state of facts alleged by the defendant, abandoning his own case. This was pointed out by Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in Govindaraj v. Kandaswami Goundar I.L.R. : (1956)2MLJ578 , and the learned Judge stressed that a plaintiff cannot be allowed to abandon his case and adopt that of the defendant and to claim relief on that footing. This decision was relied on and followed by Somasundaram, J., in Subramania Mudaliar v. Ammapet Co-operative Society : AIR1961Mad289 .
6. In the present case, there is the further difficulty that it is not even on the version of the defendant that the decree is based. The decree is based on a partial acceptance of that version, and rejection of a part of that version. I do not think that it is at all open to a trial Court to do this. Even on the merits, it is not at all clear to me that the learned District Munsif was justified in this view. The learned District Munsif has totally overlooked the feet that, at one stage of his deposition, the plaintiff made a categorical admission to the effect that the entry relating to payment of the amount of Rs. 145-75 was in his hand-writing. It is only in cross-examination that he retracted from this admission, and claimed that he had not made that entry.
7. In brief, therefore, there is no legal evidence on which it could be said that the 'plaintiff had proved any part of his claim; his claim fails totally for lack of proof. If the defendant's version is to be accepted, the part of it relating to the alleged repayment cannot be excluded. In this view, also nothing will be due to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I allow the revision and direct that the suit be dismissed with costs in the trial Court.