Skip to content


Challa Balayya Vs. Kanuparthi Subbayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1917)ILR40Mad1171
AppellantChalla Balayya
RespondentKanuparthi Subbayya
Cases ReferredRadhakrishna v. Subrayo I.L.R.
Excerpt:
negotiable instruments act (xxvi of 1881), section 27 - promissory note executed under the authority of a marksman hut not marked by him--validity of--applicability of section 226 of the indian contract act (ix of 1872). - .....was decided with reference to the execution of a will and the special wording of section 50, indian succession act. it therefore lays down no general rule. we accordingly agree with the lower appellate court that plaintiff is at liberty to prove the execution of the suit note by defendant's authority and that the case must be remanded in order that he may have an opportunity to do so. the appeal against order is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Oldfield, J.

1. The suit promissory note purports to be executed by defendant-appellant; in virtue of the words on it:

Nishani mark of Challa Subbayya.

2. There is in fact no separate mark. The plaintiff contends that the absence of one is immaterial and that he is at liberty to prove that the words referred to were written with defendant's authority and therefore constituted a valid execution of the instrument.

3. As regards the first point, we cannot see and have not been shown authority for holding that any separate mark is essential, if the writing relied on is in fact written with authority.

4. As regards the second, no case has been cited to the effect that the ordinary law of agency stated in Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act is inapplicable to negotiable instruments; and Section 27, Negotiable Instruments Act, is to the contrary effect, its restrictive portion being irrelevant in the present connection. Radhakrishna v. Subrayo I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 650 relied on by appellant, was decided with reference to the execution of a will and the special wording of Section 50, Indian Succession Act. It therefore lays down no general rule. We accordingly agree with the lower Appellate Court that plaintiff is at liberty to prove the execution of the suit note by defendant's authority and that the case must be remanded in order that he may have an opportunity to do so. The appeal against order is dismissed with costs.


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