T N SESHACHALAM NAIDU Vs. A VENKATACHALAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed as against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Tirupati in S. C. S. No. 741 of 1950 dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he had no right to sue on the promissory note, Ex. A. 6. The case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant and defendants 3 and 4 as sureties executed the suit promissory note on 17-3-1949 for Rs. 450 in favour of the Tamil Nad Commercial Fund Ltd., Kumbakonam, with its branch at Tirupati & that as all the assets and liabilities of the Tamil Nad Commercial Fund Ltd. were transferred to the second defendant, the Tirupati Commercial Fund Ltd., the second defendant became entitled to the amount due under the promissory note, and that as the second defendant transferred the promissory note to the plaintiff, he was entitled to sue and recover the amount from defendants, 1, 3 and 4.

(2.) While the third defendant remained 'ex parte', defendants 1, 2 and 4 resisted the suit. The main contention of the first defendant and the fourth defendants was that as the promissory note was not endorsed by the Tamil Nad Commercial Fund Ltd., Kumbakonam, in favour of the Tirupati Commercial Fund Ltd., i.e., the second defendant, no title passed to the second defendant in the promissory note, and that the endorsement of the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff was of no avail. The District Munsif upheld the contention of the defendants, and held that the suit was not maintainable. He also held that if the promissory note was enforceable only a sum of Rs. 97-3-0 was due thereunder. The plaintiff has filed the civil revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the decree and judgment of the District Munsif.

(3.) The District Mutisif is wrong in holding that the agreement of transfer executed by the Tamil Nad Commercial Fund Ltd., in favour of the second defendant is not a completed transfer, and that the assets and liabilities have not been transferred to the second defendant. A reading of the terms of Ex. A.8 Clearly shows that all the assets and liabilities were transferred under the agreement which was duly given effect to. As a result of the transfer in writing, the second defendant has become entitled to the amount due under the promissory note. It is unnecessary for me to deal with the effect of Sections 130 and 137 of the Transfer of Property Act, as there is an agreement in writing evidencing the transfer.