M R SANTHAMMA Vs. NANGELI AMMA DEVAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant filed O.P. (Indigent) No.16 of 1990 before the Sub court, Pathanamthitta, seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. The court below rejected that prayer. In the petition the appellant alleged that her father Raghavan Nair borrowed money and gold ornaments from her and in consideration of that on 20-4-1987 he executed a pronote for Rs.2,16,500/-. He unconditionally undertook to repay the amount with 12% interest per annum. The appellant demanded the money on several occasions. But her father did not pay and he died on 13-11-1988. The appellant alleged that on the death of her father his properties devolved on the respondents herein and that they . were liable to pay the amount due to the appellant under the pronote. The appellant also alleged that the second respondent on 24-10-1988 fraudulently induced the appellant to deliver the original promissory note to him by making her believe that he would settle the claim by transferring his money lying in deposit in Federal Bank, Kozhencherry. The appellant believed his words and handed over the promissory note after putting her signature on its reverse side. The second respondent neither transferred the money to the account of the appellant nor paid the amount due under the pronote. According to the appellant the pronote was thus lost to her and she filed the suit based on the pronote.

(2.) The court below held that the appellant had already endorsed the pronote in favour of the second respondent and therefore she had no cause of action to file a suit based on the pronote and in the absence of cause of action the prayer to sue as an indigent person was refused under R.5(d) of Order XXXIII. Aggrieved by this the present C.M.A. is filed.

(3.) It is submitted by the appellant's counsel that the suit is based on the pronote. It is also admitted that the appellant signed the pronote for the purpose of negotiation and handed over the pronote to the second respondent. Thus it is clear that the appellant gave a blank endorsement of the pronote in favour of the second respondent. Endorsement has been defined under the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.15 as follows: