Skip to content


Kuthulingam Pillai Vs. Packiyam Fernandez - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ422
AppellantKuthulingam Pillai
RespondentPackiyam Fernandez
Cases ReferredKrishnaji Ravji Godbal v. Ganesh Bapuji Patwardhari I. L. R.
Excerpt:
- - i think his suit is not to be defeated on that account vide krishnaji ravji godbal v......it is clear, and indeed it is not denied, that in order to effect a transfer of ownership of a negotiable instrument, an endorsement is not in general required by law, but it is contended that the provisions of order xxi, rules 80 and 81, of the code of civil procedure, 1908, show that an endorsement is required when the negotiable instrument is sold by court auction, i cannot accede to this contention : rule 80, as i understand it, merely enables the court to take such steps as may be required by law to make an effective transfer, and in as much as a negotiable instrument can legally be transferred as an actionable claim without endorsement, rule 80 does not affect the present case, the property not being property which requires an endorsement for its transfer appears to be property.....
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1. I think it is clear, and indeed it is not denied, that in order to effect a transfer of ownership of a negotiable instrument, an endorsement is not in general required by law, but it is contended that the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 80 and 81, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, show that an endorsement is required when the negotiable instrument is sold by court auction, I cannot accede to this contention : Rule 80, as I understand it, merely enables the court to take such steps as may be required by law to make an effective transfer, and in as much as a negotiable instrument can legally be transferred as an actionable claim without endorsement, Rule 80 does not affect the present case, The property not being property which requires an endorsement for its transfer appears to be property not otherwise provided for within the meaning of Rule 81 and vests in the purchaser on his obtaining a vesting order. The plaintiff obtained a vesting order before his decree though apparently not before the suit. I think his suit is not to be defeated on that account vide Krishnaji Ravji Godbal v. Ganesh Bapuji Patwardhari I. L. R. (1882) B. 139.

2. The decree is reversed and the suit is remanded for disposal according to law. The costs will abide the event.


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