Skip to content


K. C. Nachimuthu Chetty Vs. Andiappa Pillai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918Mad634; 42Ind.Cas.706
AppellantK. C. Nachimuthu Chetty
RespondentAndiappa Pillai
Cases ReferredChidambaram Chettiar v. Ayyasami Thevan
Excerpt:
paper currency act (ii of 1910), section 26 - promissory note contravening section, whether can form basis of suit--suit on original cause of action, maintainability of--acknowledgment, evidence of--plaint, amendment of. - .....thevan 36 ind. cas. 741 31 m. l. j. 401: (1910) 2 m. w. n. 210.2. but we consider that the district judge should have allowed the plaintiff to amend his plaint as prayed and base his suit on the original cause of action in the circumstances of this case, as no objection was taken to the frame of the suit in the first court. the questions as to whether the plaintiff's suit on the original cause of action would not be maintainable in whole or part, having reference to the observations in shanmuganatha chettiar v. srinivasa aiyar 31 m. l. j. 138. and in chidambaram chettiar v. ayyasami thevan 40 m. 585 : (1910) 2 m. w. n. 210. and whether his suit will be barred by limitation, are questions to be decided by the trial court after evidence. we may observe that there is nothing in law.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the learned District Judge held that the suit as brought was not maintainable as the note sued on was one which offended against Section 26 of the Indian Paper Currency Act. That was clearly right: see Chidambaram Chettiar v. Ayyasami Thevan 36 Ind. Cas. 741 31 M. L. J. 401: (1910) 2 M. W. N. 210.

2. But we consider that the District Judge should have allowed the plaintiff to amend his plaint as prayed and base his suit on the original cause of action in the circumstances of this case, as no objection was taken to the frame of the suit in the First Court. The questions as to whether the plaintiff's suit on the original cause of action would not be maintainable in whole or part, having reference to the observations in Shanmuganatha Chettiar v. Srinivasa Aiyar 31 M. L. J. 138. and in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Ayyasami Thevan 40 M. 585 : (1910) 2 M. W. N. 210. and whether his suit will be barred by limitation, are questions to be decided by the Trial Court after evidence. We may observe that there is nothing in law to prevent a note offending against Section 26 being admitted in evidence as an acknowledgment.

3. We set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the case to the First Court for fresh trial. Plaintiff will have leave to amend his plaint as advised in three weeks from the date of receipt of this order by the First Court.

4. All costs will abide and follow the result.


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