INDIRA DEVI Vs. MADHAVA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two petitions by the defendant in a suit on a promissory note, to revise two decrees passed in two appeals, one preferred by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant, against the decree allowing the suit without costs. The principal defence to the suit was, that the promissory note was executed by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff, benami for the defendant's deceased grandfather who advanced the consideration thereunder, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue. On the authority of the decision of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Subba Narayana Vathiyar v. Ramaswamy Aiyar, 30 ILR Madras 88, this contention is not open to the defendant. No valid reason has been adduced before us by the learned counsel for the defendant, to induce us to take a different view. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench in the case cited, and hold that the plaintiff is competent to sue on the promissory note.

(2.) A second contention attempted to be raised before us, that the delivery of the promissory note on its execution by the defendant to her grandfather, was not sufficient under S.46 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to entitle the plaintiff to sue on the promissory note, had not been raised in the pleadings or in these revision petitions, and we decline to go into it. We therefore dismiss these civil revision petitions with costs to the plaintiff-counter petitioner.