The third document on which the plaintiff relied is Exhibit A 8 being a letter dated 17 June, 1954 addressed by the lawyer of the Firm Seth Harakchand Surajmal to the defendants lawyer.
8100 0 0 for which an endorsement has been made, in respect of the simple mortgage has been made in respect of the simple mortgage deed for Rs.
19000/ on 31 December, 1953 towards the mortgage bond.
26,000/ as alleged by the plaintiffs or for Rs.
The principal sum secured Rs.
The plaintiffs refused to give any further loan as the amount due on the mortgage had become a large sum The plaintiff then took out the document and found out the amount due on the bond.
17500 0.0 executed by your client in favour of my clients Taraji Khimchand firm on 1 1 1948.
1 against the firm of Seth Harakchand Surajmal This document was relied on for the same purpose that a sum of Rs.
17,000/ in words Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred executed by Yelamarty Satyam alias Satteyya, Poleswararao, Chennarao, Narayanamurthi of Rajamundry on Poshwad Punchand of the year two thousand four.
26,000/ and number Rs.
26,000/ by the defendants was number companyrect.
Defendants Nos.
26,000/ .
In that letter the mortgage amount of Rs.
In that letter there is a statement as follows As regards Rs.
It may be stated there that the translation of the Marwari writing as set out in the written statement was different to the translation referred to by the Court as Ex.
It was said on behalf of the plaintiffs that this letter indicated that the amount due to the plaintiffs from the defendants was Rs.
27,995 11 0 and interest.
Thirdly, any statement by a different firm has to be proved as a fact.
410/ Defendants No.
26.000/ and odd then found due while endorsing the payment in part for a sum of Rs.
19,000/ to the plaintiffs on 31 December, 1953 and the same was endorsed on the second page of the mortgage bond and the plaintiffs had number given the defendants credit for the same The second ground was that the alleged acknowledgement of Rs.
17,500/ was repayable with companypound interest at 1 per mensem with half yearly rests.
251245/ was mentioned by Harakchand Surajmal as due by the plaintiff these to Harakchand Surajmal.
26000/ and odd The necessity for endorsing the acknowledgement of liability was because the first defendant borrowed on 12 January, 1955 Rs.
19,000/ on 31 December, 1953 and made an endorsement on the mortgage bond in respect of the said payment secondly, whether the defendants on 12 January, 1955 acknowledged d liability for Rs.
The plaintiff found out a writing in Telugu language in an unusual place on the second page of the first sheet, which he companyld number decipher.
This letter was number served on the defendants.
1500/ from another firm of some of the plaintiffs for depositing a sum into the Court and out of that sum of Rs.
Defendants No.
The plaintiff firm in paragraph 8 of the plaint further alleged that on 12 January, 1955 the first defendant acknowledged in writing on the mortgage bond liability for about Rs.
The said plaintiff then insisted that the said defendant should make an endorsement of the amount due on that date.
The partner of the plaintiff firm thereupon threatened that he would launch criminal case.
First, defendants No.
19,000/ on 31 December, 1953 and the allegation that the payment was endorsed on the second page of the mortgage bond was number true The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants 1 to 4 had acknowledged a debt of Rs.
The plaintiffs did number prove these books.
The plaintiffs did number file a true translation of the said endorsement in Marwari.
19,000/ .
They made a payment of Rs.
One of the plaintiffs was apprised that the first defendant had meddled with the document.
They admitted execution of the mortgage bond and receipt of the companysideration.
The plaintiff firm after giving credit to the defendants for the sums paid towards the loan on the mortgage deed claimed the sum of Rs.
19,000/ , and after obliterating the said endorsement the plaintiffs wrote an endorsement in Marwari language over the said rubbed portion.
They were number relevant to the mortgage transactions.The first defendant thereupon apologised and begged the plaintiff number to proceed further.
The second feature on the writing of the mortgage deed is in respect of the rival companytentions as to acknowledgement of liability.
105 of 1954.
Seth Harakchand Surajmal is a different firm.
The appellants are the plaintiffs.
The first was Exhibit A 40 a letter dated I April, 1954 written by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
This document was relied on by the plaintiffs for the statement made there that a sum of Rs.
The defendants 1 to 4 filed a written statement as follows.
The first defendant had endorsed on the mortgage bond the said payment of Rs.
B 3 which will be referred to later on On these pleadings the two principal questions in companytroversy between the parties were first whether the first defendant made a payment of Rs.
1 at the time of giving oral evidence.
The writing is in Telugu.
The plaintiffs wilfully and deliberately tampered the endorsement made by the defendants with regard to acknowledgement of liability for Rs.
He said that he had seen all the endorsements on the mortgage before it was put into Court.
19,000/ on 31 December, 1953 and further that the first defendant made any endorsement with regard to payment of Rs.
1500/ the first defendant made a payment of Rs.
On inspection it appeared that the plaintiffs rubbed the said endorsement with regard to the payment of Rs.
2600/ into a liability for Rs.
19000/ on 31 December, 1953 to the plaintiffs.
8100/ made by the defendants from time to time and demand was made for the outstanding.
The appellants instituted the suit for the recovery of Rs.
2600/ being the balance of the amount then due under the bond.
19,000/ as alleged by the defendants but the plaintiffs wrote in Marwari language on the mortgage bond as follows Simple Mortgage Bond dated 1 1 48 for Rs.
25245/ and secondly that the defendants had paid Rs.
This letter did number specifically mention the amount outstanding but it was said that the implication suggested that the defendants should have replied stating that Rs.
Eventually, some of the heirs and legal representatives of the plantiffs partners were brought on the record of the suit.
Defendant No.
This is an inaccurate statement.
The second document on which the plaintiffs relied is Ex.
17500/ was mentioned and it referred to payments for the sum of Rs.
19,000/ had been paid on 31 December, 1953.
The first defendant hurriedly rubbed off the endorsement.
27,995 11 0 with further interest and companyts on the basis of a mortgage bond dated 1 January, 1948 executed by the first defendant and his sons defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff firm.
735.0 0 being the amount of rent payable for the period 9 7 1952 to 9 4 1954 your client has subsequently asked my client to credit the same towards the interest on about 26145 11 0 being the amount of principal and interest remaining due after deducting the payment of Rs.
The writing in Marwari was done with a view to companyering up the endorsement made by the defendants with regard to payment.
410/ to the plaintiffs towards the mortgage amount.
Written statement is dated 7 August, 1954.
The plaintiffs cannot therefore rely on that document.
25145/ was owed by the defendant No.
They were numbered plaintiffs 6 to 10.
26000/ .
A 41, A 42 were number shown to defendant No.
The plaintiffs wanted to rely on Exhibits A 12 and A 13, the day book and the ledger respectively.
1 to 4 applied to the Court for examination and scrutiny of the mortgage bond on two grounds.
26,000/ was found at the time when the bond was put in the sealed companyer.
1 to 4 were the principal defendants and sued as mortgagees.
1 to 4 alleged that besides the payments mentioned in the plaint, the defendants had made a payment of Rs.
The endorsement Ex.
Secondly this letter Exhibit A 8 was also number shown to the defendants in cross examination and therefore cannot be used against the defendants.
9 The plaintiffs case was that on 12 January, 1955 the first defendant approached the plaintiffs for a further loan for depositing a certain amount in the Subordinate Judges Court at Rajahmundry for setting aside a sale of some of his property.
2600/ as alleged by the defendants.
19,000/ on the reverse side of the first page of the mortgage bond.
The plaintiffs filed a companynter affidavit alleging that the defendants 1 to 4 had number paid Rs.
5 and 6 were partners of the plaintiffs firm who had retired.
7 and 8 were the subsequent mortgagees.
1 was the plaintiff in that suit and Seth Harakchand Surajmal was the defendant.
The defendants thereupon on the same day 12 January, 1955 acknowledged the liability to the extent of Rs.
The over writing was visible on the document itself.
These documents Ex.
1 to Seth Harakchand Surajmal.
The original mortgage deed with regard to the rival cases as to the alleged endorsement for payment of Rs.
Exhibit A 42 is an affidavit dated 26 July, 1954 made by Seth Harakchand Surajmal in the Suit tiled by defendant No.
The answer to that question would decide the truth or falsity of the statement provided also the statement were shown to the defendants.
He saw the mortgage bond Ex A 1 when he filed the plaint.
That would number make the document admissible.
The fourth document on which the appellants relied is Exhibit A 41 being a companyy of the written statement of Harakchand Surajmal in suit No.
A 7 a letter dated 14 June, 1954 This was a letter from the defendants lawyer to Harakchand Surajmal demanding rent for a shop occupied by the firm of Harakchand Surajmal The firm of Seth Harakchand Surajmal is a different firm though Harakchand and Surajmal happen to be companymon partners of the plaintiff firm This letter is in the first place number interparties, secondly, it is number relevant to the mortgage transaction, and thirdly it was number shown to the defendant in cross examination.
The defendants alleged that they acknowledged liability for Rs.
The transaction was number with that firm but a different firm.
It may be that Harakchand and Surajmal were partners of the plaintiff firm.
The digits are in English.
Documents do number prove themselves.
2600/ .
The first appellant is a registered firm and the other appellants are its partners.
Defendants 1 to 4 were allowed to examine and scrutinise the mortgage bond before the Sheristadar on numberice to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs thereafter filed a statement in reply The plaintiffs denied that the first defendant made any payment of Rs.
In the second place the plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant on 12 January, 1955 made an endorsement on the mortgage bond acknowledging a debt of Rs.
Thirdly, the plaintiffs alleged that the palintiff did number rub any endorsement of payment of Rs.
The defendants Nos.
On being questioned by the plaintiff the first defendant companyfessed that ho dishonestly wrote the endorsement, some time previously when the first defendant took the document from the plaintiffs for purposes of making a companyy of the schedule for his immediate use.
N. Ray, J This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated 13 January, 1964 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh modifying the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge on 27 November, 1958 and allowing the appeal from the decree by giving the defendants credit for the payment of Rs.
