Skip to content


K.M.U.R. Ulagappa Chetty Vs. Ramanathan Chetty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.821
AppellantK.M.U.R. Ulagappa Chetty
RespondentRamanathan Chetty and anr.
Cases ReferredSowcar Lodd Govinda Doss v. Muneppa Naidu
Excerpt:
negotiable instruments act (xxvi of 1881), section 9 - holder in due course--promissory note, suit on--endorsement in plaintiff's name, absence of--suit, maintainability of. - - i therefore, think that the present suit was unsustainable, being a suit on a promissory note which had not been endorsed to the plaintiff, and i must hold that the district munsif was wrong in decreeing the plaintiff's suit.coutts trotter, j.1. i think that the decision in sowcar lodd govinda doss v. muneppa naidu 4 m.l.t. 341 is in conflict with that in arunachala reddi v. subba reddi 17 m.l.j. 393; 3 m.l.t. 7 and the authorities therein referred to. apart from authority i am very strongly of opinion myself that the case in sowcar lodd govinda doss v. muneppa naidu 4 m.l.t. 341 cannot possibly be supported, as it amounts pro tanto to a repeal of the negotiable instruments act. i therefore, think that the present suit was unsustainable, being a suit on a promissory note which had not been endorsed to the plaintiff, and i must hold that the district munsif was wrong in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. i allow the petition and dismiss the suit with costs here and in the court below. civil revision petition no......
Judgment:

Coutts Trotter, J.

1. I think that the decision in Sowcar Lodd Govinda Doss v. Muneppa Naidu 4 M.L.T. 341 is in conflict with that in Arunachala Reddi v. Subba Reddi 17 M.L.J. 393; 3 M.L.T. 7 and the authorities therein referred to. Apart from authority I am very strongly of opinion myself that the case in Sowcar Lodd Govinda Doss v. Muneppa Naidu 4 M.L.T. 341 cannot possibly be supported, as it amounts pro tanto to a repeal of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I therefore, think that the present suit was unsustainable, being a suit on a promissory note which had not been endorsed to the plaintiff, and I must hold that the District Munsif was wrong in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. I allow the petition and dismiss the suit with costs here and in the Court below. Civil Revision Petition No. 132 of 1915 follows, but there will be no order as to costs in that case.


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