Skip to content


Baldeo Sahai Vs. Behari Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915All94(1); (1915)ILR37All99
AppellantBaldeo Sahai
RespondentBehari Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
.....under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - both courts have found that there was good consideration for the note. if they are liable under the note all that they are entitled to have ascertained is that the plaintiff is the legal holder of the note and able to give them a good discharge......court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. both courts have found that there was good consideration for the note. but the lower appellate court has held that the plaintiff, who is the holder of the note under an assignment, dated the 17th of june, 1912, did not give any consideration for the assignment of the note. it seems to us that this finding was immaterial. even if we assume the finding to be correct, the defendants, behari lal and nathu singh, have no concern with the question whether consideration was paid or not paid by the assignee of the note. if they are liable under the note all that they are entitled to have ascertained is that the plaintiff is the legal holder of the note and able to give them a good discharge. it is quite clear that the plaintiff is.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to recover the amount due under a promissory note. A number of pleas were taken, and amongst others a (denial of consideration. The court of first instance granted the plaintiff a decree. The lower appellate court reversed the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Both courts have found that there was good consideration for the note. But the lower appellate court has held that the plaintiff, who is the holder of the note under an assignment, dated the 17th of June, 1912, did not give any consideration for the assignment of the note. It seems to us that this finding was immaterial. Even if we assume the finding to be correct, the defendants, Behari Lal and Nathu Singh, have no concern with the question whether consideration was paid or not paid by the assignee of the note. If they are liable under the note all that they are entitled to have ascertained is that the plaintiff is the legal holder of the note and able to give them a good discharge. It is quite clear that the plaintiff is entitled to give a discharge to the defendants. The case cited has no application to the present case. In that case the transferor was a party to the suit and he repudiated the transfer in favour of the plaintiff, contending that he had retained all his original rights. We must allow the appeal and setting aside the decree of the court below, restore the decree of the court of first instance. The appellant will have his costs in this Court and in the court below.


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