Skip to content


Mt. Munna Kunwari Vs. Lakhnath Sahai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1932All648
AppellantMt. Munna Kunwari
RespondentLakhnath Sahai and ors.
Excerpt:
- - respondents 1 and 2 will have their costs in both the courts in proportion to their success......of the plaintiff-appellant before us har narain sahai transferred by endorsement the promissory note in favour of his step mother and the latter brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. har narain, defendant 3, did not contest the claim. defendants 1 and 2 did. they pleaded that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was a colourable one and that only rs. 300 out of the sum of rs. 1499 had passed as the consideration of the promissory note. the first court decreed the suit in its entirety, but the learned judge of the lower appellate court has dismissed it in toto. he found that there was no consideration for the transfer in favour of the plaintiff and that only rs. 300 out of the entire consideration of the promissory note had passed. on these findings the learned judge.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. This appeal must succeed in part. The two defendants, Lakh-nath Sahai and Chandi Sahai executed a promissory note ostensibly for a sum of Rs. 1,499 on 7th May 1927 in favour of Har Narain Sahai, the stepson of the plaintiff-appellant before us Har Narain Sahai transferred by endorsement the promissory note in favour of his step mother and the latter brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. Har Narain, defendant 3, did not contest the claim. Defendants 1 and 2 did. They pleaded that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was a colourable one and that only Rs. 300 out of the sum of Rs. 1499 had passed as the consideration of the promissory note. The first Court decreed the suit in its entirety, but the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has dismissed it in toto. He found that there was no consideration for the transfer in favour of the plaintiff and that only Rs. 300 out of the entire consideration of the promissory note had passed. On these findings the learned Judge dismissed the suit. He considered that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover even the sum of Rs. 300 and interest thereon. In appeal before us only one point has been urged, namely, the plaintiff was entitled to recover at least the sum of Rs. 300 and interest thereon at the stipulated rate. We think that this point is a correct one and must succeed.

2. The makers of the promissory note cannot raise the plea that no consideration passed for the transfer in favour of the plaintiff. They being third parties to the transfer, it does not lie in their mouth to question the consideration of that transfer. Prom the fact that no consideration was paid for the transfer, the plaintiff may not insist on recovering the entire amount of the promissory note as innocent transferee without notice of the fact that a part of the consideration had not passed. But there is nothing in the law which prevents her from recovering what was payable to Har Narain on foot of the promissory note. No rule of law or no authority has been quoted for the contention that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything at all. We allow the appeal in part, modify the decree of the Court below and grant a decree for recovery of Rs. 300 and a proportionate amount of interest at the stipulated rate with proportionate costs in both the Courts. Respondents 1 and 2 will have their costs in both the Courts in proportion to their success. The amount decreed in favour of the plaintiff will carry interest at six per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till recovery.


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