Skip to content


M. Chengalroya Chetty Vs. Nainiappa Naicker and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in117Ind.Cas.133
AppellantM. Chengalroya Chetty
RespondentNainiappa Naicker and ors.
Cases ReferredMa Hnit v. Hashim Ebrahim Meter
Excerpt:
negotiable instruments act (xxvi of 1881), sections 26, 120 - pro-note by minor, validity of--estoppel from sitting up minority. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule..........the decision of the full bench of the court of small causes, madras. the suit was filed on a promissory note against two defendants. the trial judge found that the 2nd defendant was a minor and dismissed the suit as against him. the decision was confirmed by the full bench of the court of small causes. the plaintiff (petitioner) relies upon section 120 of the negotiable instruments act which enacts that no maker of a promissory note shall in a suit therein by a holder in due course be permitted to deny the validity of the instrument as originally made. the point to decide is--is a party precluded under this section from denying the validity of the note on the ground that he did not possess the capacity to contract? section 26 of the same act says that every person capable of.....
Judgment:

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. In this petition the plaintiff attacks the decision of the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The suit was filed on a promissory note against two defendants. The trial Judge found that the 2nd defendant was a minor and dismissed the suit as against him. The decision was confirmed by the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff (petitioner) relies upon Section 120 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which enacts that no maker of a promissory note shall in a suit therein by a holder in due course be permitted to deny the validity of the instrument as originally made. The point to decide is--Is a party precluded under this section from denying the validity of the note on the ground that he did not possess the capacity to contract? Section 26 of the same Act says that every person capable of contracting may bind himself by the making of a promissory note. According to this section, therefore, capacity to incur liability as makes of the note depends upon his capacity to contract under the general law. The Indian Contract Act makes minority at the time of the contract a disqualification. The specific provision contained in Section 120 is clearly subject to the general rule enacted in the earlier Section 26. If the party does not possess legal capacity to enter into a contract, Section 26 makes it clear that such person cannot render himself liable by executing a promissory note. The decision of the Full Bench is, therefore, correct. If authority is needed for this proposition, it is to be found in Ma Hnit v. Hashim Ebrahim Meter 55 Ind. Cas. 793 : 38 M.L.J. 353 : 18 A.L.J. 335 : (1920) M.W.N. 319 : 2 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 58 : 22 Bom. L.R. 531 : 32 C.L.J. 214 : 27 M.L.T. 190 (P.C.).

2. Their Lordships say at page 359 Page of 38 M.L.J.--[Ed.]

Ali Hashim Meter certainly was a minor and Fatima Bibi apparently was a minor when the promissory note was made The suit should have been dismissed on that ground if there was no other ground for dismissing it.

3. This is clear pronouncement that a promissory note made by a minor is void.

4. As regards certain other point, which the petitioner wishes to raise, I agree with the Judges of the Fall Bench that he must not be allowed to raise that at a late stage. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

Reilly, J.

5. I agree.


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