CHANDY JOSEPH Vs. VILLAGE TRUST BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit on a promissory note is the appellant in the second appeal. The main contention of the appellant is that the suit promissory note is not a promissory note coming within the definition of that term under S.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The payee in the promissory note is the Village Trust Bank, Poovarani. The argument of the learned advocate of the appellant is that the payee is not a certain person as contemplated by S.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is conceded by the learned Advocate of the respondent that the Village Trust Bank is not a registered Bank. According to him the respondent is the sole proprietor of the bank and the Village Trust Bank is only his business name. The Trial Court accepted the contention of the appellant and dismissed the suit. On appeal the lower appellate court reversed the said decision of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. The defendant has come up in second appeal.

(2.) The only question, as I have already observed, is regarding the interpretation of a certain person in S.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This expression appears in S.5 of the Act also, where a bill of exchange is defined. The last paragraph of S.5 lays down that the person to whom it is clear that the direction is given or that payment is to be made may be a certain person, within the meaning of that section and S.4, although he is misnamed or designated by description only. This means that if the payee is designated by description, that is sufficient to constitute a certain person, under S.4 of the Act. Putting it differently if the payee is an existing person, though the name is fictitious, the payee is a certain person as contemplated by law.

(3.) Then the further question is whether the description of the payee in the document before me as the Village Trust Bank, Poovarani is sufficient to establish the certainty of the existing person as contemplated by S.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this connection it will be instructive to refer to one decision of the Madras High Court in Ponnuswami Chettiar v. P. Vellaimuthu Chettiar ( AIR 1957 Mad. 355 ). In that case the payee in the promissory note was described as son of P. C. and in construing this expression Panchapakesa Iyer, J. observes as follows: