Skip to content


Ramachandra Rao and ors. Vs. Kuppusami Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ262
AppellantRamachandra Rao and ors.
RespondentKuppusami Aiyar
Cases ReferredWhistler v. Forster
Excerpt:
- - according to english law it is clear that a promissory note may be assigned by the holder just like any other chose in action, the assignee taking the rights which his assignor has to convey and no more. there is no reason why in this country an assignee of this particular sort of chose in action should not enjoy the rights which attach to the assignee of debt and be allowed to sue in his own name......payable to order. here the point taken is that there was a valid transfer or assignment of the chose in action, and it is not contended that there was any negotiation of the note. according to english law it is clear that a promissory note may be assigned by the holder just like any other chose in action, the assignee taking the rights which his assignor has to convey and no more. whistler v. forster, 32 l. j., c. b., 163. he does not obtain the title according to law merchant which an endorsement would give him, nor could he before the jurisdiction act sue in his own name, but the transfer is nevertheless valid as an equitable assignment. there is no reason why in this country an assignee of this particular sort of chose in action should not enjoy the rights which attach to the.....
Judgment:

1. In Pattat Ambadi Marar v. Krishnan I. L. R., 11 M. 290 it was held that without indorsement there could not be negotiation of a promissory note payable to order. Here the point taken is that there was a valid transfer or assignment of the chose in action, and it is not contended that there was any negotiation of the note. According to English law it is clear that a promissory note may be assigned by the holder just like any other chose in action, the assignee taking the rights which his assignor has to convey and no more. Whistler v. Forster, 32 L. J., C. B., 163. He does not obtain the title according to Law Merchant which an endorsement would give him, nor could he before the Jurisdiction Act sue in his own name, but the transfer is nevertheless valid as an equitable assignment. There is no reason why in this country an assignee of this particular sort of chose in action should not enjoy the rights which attach to the assignee of debt and be allowed to sue in his own name.

2. It is argued that by the Negotiable Instruments Act any other mode of transfer than by indorsement is excluded. We can see nothing in the Act to justify this contention.

3. We must reverse the decree and remand the case for trial. Respondent must pay the costs of the appeal. Other costs will be provided for in the revised decree.


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