J RAJANNA SETTY Vs. PATEL THIMMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for recovery of the money due on Promissory Note in O. S. No. 139/1979 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore, was dismissed on 19-3-1983. Appeal preferred therefrom in R. A. No. 6/83 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Bangalore met with the same fate on 27-11-1987. Hence the second appeal.

(2.) THE suit is based on the promissory note for the value of Rs. 15,000/-, out of which Rs. 11,400/- was claimed to have been paid by the defendant. Decree for the balance was sought for in the suit.

(3.) THE defendant contended that he has signed a blank Promissory Note and given it to one Janardhana Setty. He also confirmed the payment of Rs. 11,400/- to the said Janardhana Setty. According to him Rs. 11,400 was the amount borrowed by him, and the defendant was expecting the said Janardhana Setty to return the blank promissory note, but that was never to be. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal. The Courts below have completely gone wrong forgetting the law under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The signature of the defendant on the promissory note is admitted. Though he claims to have given a blank promissory note, he cannot escape his liability in view of Sec. 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as extracted below :