SHEIK IBRAHIM SAHEB Vs. KESAVA KAMMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The promissory note sued upon was executed in favour of a company called the Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited and the plaintiff claimed under an endorsement thereon in his favour made by the Secretary of the company for the company. There was no specific denial or non admission of the authority of the Secretary to endorse the promissory note on behalf of the company. All that the petitioner said in paragraph 12 of his written statement was that the plaintiff was put to strict proof of the validity of the endorsement and of the Secretary's authority to make it. Therefore there was strictly speaking no traverse of the allegation in the plaint that the promissory note had been endorsed to the plaintiff by the company and the allegation must in terms of O.8 R.5 of the Code, be taken to be admitted. That apart, from the proved facts, namely, that the endorsement was by the Secretary of the Company under its seal, for due consideration, and was accompanied by the delivery of the promissory note to the plaintiff who put it into court with his plaint, it is reasonable to presume that the Secretary had authority to make the endorsement.

(2.) The promissory note is for Rs. 1,650/- and the assignment, is of the entire right in the note. The fact that the plaintiff, sued only for Rs. 922/87 which he said was the balance due after crediting payments made does not mean that the endorsement was for part of the sum due, so as to attract S.56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) The only other contention taken by the petitioner was that the promissory note was executed only as collateral security in respect of some other transactions. But this case, depending solely on his bare word of mouth, was not accepted by the court below.