Skip to content


Gopal Row Gady Ram Sahib Vs. Veerappan Servaikaran - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.95
AppellantGopal Row Gady Ram Sahib
RespondentVeerappan Servaikaran
Cases ReferredSubba Narayna Vathiayar v. Ramaswami Iyer
Excerpt:
promissory-note, suit on - promisee's name inserted in erroneous manner--suit by real promisee--maintainability of suit--rectification of instrument, suit for, whether necessary. - .....the promissory-note must be first brought and the instrument rectified before he can institute the suit. a suit for rectification of document is not, cognizable by the small cause court, but i do not see the necessity for such a suit. the case of the plaintiff is, that, he is in fact the promisee and was intended to be such, but only his father's name has been entered by mistakes as if it was his own name. evidence can be given to show that there was such a mistake. see halsbury's laws of england, volume ii, page 473, section 797 jacobs v. benton 63 am. dec. 609 : 39 maine 132 and willis v. barrett 2 starke's rep. 29: and there is no reason why the small cause court cannot receive such evidence. section 87 of the negotiable instruments act, 188l, also seems to confirm the view, because,.....
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. What happened in this case was this. The plaintiff was entitled to some money from the defendant on settlement of accounts, aid the defendant to secure the amount due, executed the promissory-note sued on. By a mistake of the writer, the name of the plaintiff's father was written as the person in whose favour it was executed instead of the plaintiff's name. The plaintiff's father was dead and his name was inserted by mistake, the parties intending all the time that the plaintiff was to be the promisee The Subordinate Judge has non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that a suit for rectification of the promissory-note must be first brought and the instrument rectified before he can institute the suit. A suit for rectification of document is not, cognizable by the Small Cause Court, but I do not see the necessity for such a suit. The case of the plaintiff is, that, he is in fact the promisee and was intended to be such, but only his father's name has been entered by mistakes as if it was his own name. Evidence can be given to show that there was such a mistake. See Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume II, page 473, Section 797 Jacobs v. Benton 63 Am. Dec. 609 : 39 Maine 132 and Willis v. Barrett 2 Starke's Rep. 29: and there is no reason why the Small Cause Court cannot receive such evidence. Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 188l, also seems to confirm the view, because, if a party to a, negotiable instrument, is entitled to make an alteration to carry out the common intention of the parties it stands to reason that evidence can he adduced to show that there has been a mistake. I do not think Subba Narayna Vathiayar v. Ramaswami Iyer 30 M.P 88 : 1 M.L.T. 377 : 16 M.L.J. 508 decides anything to the contrary. Here, what is sought to be proved is not that the parties intended that the benefit of the promissory-note should accrue to a person not named in the instrument, but that, by the promisae named in the promissory-note, the real promisee was intended.

2. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge is reversed and the suit will be remanded to him for trial on the merits. Costs will follow the result.


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