UMBU Vs. GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit (Small Cause) is on a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant, the subscriber of a kuri. The 2nd defendant is a surety for the 1st defendant to secure future subscriptions of the prized ticket of the kuri. The organisers of the kuri are defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. The plaintiff in whose favour an assignment of the promissory note was executed by the organisers has instituted this suit. The court below decreed the suit in part, namely, to the extent of the actual amount of future subscriptions due from the first defendant to the organisers of the kuri. This C.R. P. is against that decree. The main contentions urged by the revision petitioner are that the promissory note being a negotiable instrument can be assigned only by an endorsement thereof and not by an assignment of the promissory note and that an assignee of the promissory note, not being its endorsee cannot sue on the note. It has been held in C.R. Venkatarama Ayyar v. B.S. Krishnaswamy Chettiyar ( AIR 1933 Mad. 133 ) as also in Chanshyam Das Marwari v. Ragho Sahu (AIR 1937 Patna 100) that an assignee of a promissory note can sue the executant thereof for the amount due thereunder, though an apparently contrary view was expressed in Jang Bahadur Singh v. Chander Bali Singh (AIR 1939 Allahabad 279). I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the matter, and hold that the assignee gets the rights of the holder of the promissory note and can sue the drawer of the promissory note for the amount covered by it.

(2.) It follows therefore that the decree and judgment of the court below are correct. The C. R. P. fails and it is dismissed. But in view of the fair attitude taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing, I do not make any order as to costs in this C.R.P.