Skip to content


Subramanya Tevan and ors. Vs. Arunachala Tevan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ186
AppellantSubramanya Tevan and ors.
RespondentArunachala Tevan and anr.
Cases ReferredRamanuja Aiyyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. 1. in ramanuja ayyangar v. sadagopa ayyangar i.l.r. (1904) m. 205 it was held that under the negotiable instruments act the only person entitled to sue on a promissory note was the payee or the holder. the decision in this case was expressly approved by the full bench in subba narayana vathiyar v. ramaswami aiyar i.l.r. (1906) m. 88. the attention of the lower appellate court was not called to ramanuja ayyangar v. sadagopa ayyangar i.l.r. (1904) m. 205. on the authority of this case, we must hold that the plaintiff, not being the payee named in the note, was not entitled to sue.2. the note sued on in the present case is not a negotiable instrument under the definition contained in section 13 of the negotiable instruments act, whereas it would appear that the note sued on in ramanuja.....
Judgment:

1. In Ramanuja Ayyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar I.L.R. (1904) M. 205 it was held that under the Negotiable Instruments Act the only person entitled to sue on a promissory note was the payee or the holder. The decision in this case was expressly approved by the Full Bench in Subba Narayana Vathiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar I.L.R. (1906) M. 88. The attention of the lower appellate Court was not called to Ramanuja Ayyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar I.L.R. (1904) M. 205. On the authority of this case, we must hold that the plaintiff, not being the payee named in the note, was not entitled to sue.

2. The note sued on in the present case is not a negotiable instrument under the definition contained in Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas it would appear that the note sued on in Ramanuja Aiyyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar I.L.R. (1904) M. 205 was a negotiable instrument. But the fact that the instrument is not negotiable, in our view, makes no difference as regards the question before us. Section 78 draws no distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable instruments.

3. We do not think that the present case can be distinguished from the cases to which we have referred by reason of the fact that the payee named in the note was made one of the defendants in the suit.

4. On the authority of the cases to which we have referred we must allow the appeal and restore the decree of the Munsif dismissing the suit with costs. In the circumstances we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court.


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