Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
S. Ramachandra Iyer vs R.M.M.A. Annamalai Chettiar And Ors. on 12 December, 1966 cites

S.C.T. Al. Alagappa Chettiar vs S.S.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiar on 16 December, 1930

(3) The bank draft was issued by the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China and bore No. 54/258 dated 21-6-1955, and was in favour of AL. V. R. S. T. Veerappa Chettiar. The draft was addressed to the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Devakottai, but cashed through the Indian Bank Ltd. on 4-7-1955. There was an entry for the receipt in the family day-book Ex. A. 21, on same day. The recital of this was that it was credited towards the promissory note. Ex. A. 21 was a family account. The bank passbook Ex. A. 22 which also pertains to the family, contains an entry relating to the receipt of this sum. It appears that along with the draft was sent a covering letter, which is not produced. There is, however, a reference to the sum of Rs. 1000 in Ex. A. 5, dated 6-1-1956, which was written by the first respondent to Veerappa Chettiar. In this letter, while referring to the earlier payment on Ani 7th of Rs. 1000 by bank draft, the first respondent said that the amount might be credited in the Thanathu account. The letter further stated that the balance will be paid to the addressee and the debt cleared and it need not be mixed up with what was in common. This documentary evidence unmistakably shows that the sum of Rs. 1000 was credited towards the promissory note. The court below, however, considered that the reference in Ex. A. 5 to "thanathu" account and certain mistakes crept into the entry in Ex. A. 21, relating to the receipt of Rs. 1000 by draft, showed that the amount was not earmarked towards the promissory note but it was a payment on some other transaction. We are unable to agree with this reasoning. The mistakes in the entry in the account book seem to be by inadvertence and are inconsequential. We are satisfied that the entry related only to the draft in question. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the account and the particular entry. No doubt Ex. A. 5 shows that the sum may be credited towards the 'Thannathu' account. We are inclined to think that there must have been some kind of understanding between the first respondent and the addressee in regard to the promissory note debt and the addressee was particular that the amount should be paid into his hand. Nevertheless, the addressee, when the amount was received, credited it in the family account and towards the promissory note. There is no reason to think that this entry was made with a view to create evidence. We are aware that the receiver was not initially in possession of the fact relating to the last payment towards the promissory note. On 24-10-1959, or so, Veerappa Chettiar handed over to the Receiver the records relating to the family. By then, Veerappa Chettiar and his brothers were in litigation and the dispute was in appeal pending in this court. It is possible that particular care was not taken in handing over to the receiver all the papers or fully posting him with complete information. Having regard to the facts and circumstances we have mentioned, we place no reliance on the evidence of the first respondent that the sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid towards some other account. He never set up that case at the earliest opportunity. If his case was true, there is no explanation why he could not have mentioned it in the counter affidavit in the application for amendment of the plaint, or at least in the additional written statement. Except his assertion, there is nothing to show that the sum was paid towards a transaction other than the promissory note. We reverse the finding of the court below and hold that the last payment of Rs. 1,000, was also towards the suit promissory note.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1