Skip to content


Panchapakesa Ayyar Vs. Ayyaswami Ayyar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in107Ind.Cas.510
AppellantPanchapakesa Ayyar
RespondentAyyaswami Ayyar and anr.
Cases ReferredCompare Sundram Chetty v. Damodaram Chetty
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 92 - negotiable instruments act (xxvi of 1881), section 46--suit on pro-note--plea that pro-note was executed and delivered merely as security, maintainability of. - reilly, j.1. in my opinion it was open to the defendants under proviso (3) to section 92 of the evidence act and section 46 of the negotiable instruments act to prove that the promissory note was executed and delivered only as security for the payment of future instalments to the chit fund. compare sundram chetty v. damodaram chetty 84 ind. cas. 146 : (1924) m.w.n. 529 : a.i.r. 1924 mad. 850. there is evidence that the note was executed and delivered only as such security. the endorsement regarding the payment of rs. 130 is not necessarily inconsistent with the defendant's a case. i see no sufficient reason to interfere. this petition is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Reilly, J.

1. In my opinion it was open to the defendants under proviso (3) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act and Section 46 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to prove that the promissory note was executed and delivered only as security for the payment of future instalments to the chit fund. Compare Sundram Chetty v. Damodaram Chetty 84 Ind. Cas. 146 : (1924) M.W.N. 529 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 850. There is evidence that the note was executed and delivered only as such security. The endorsement regarding the payment of Rs. 130 is not necessarily inconsistent with the defendant's a case. I see no sufficient reason to interfere. This petition is dismissed with costs.


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