C.M. SIVARAM Vs. V.S. JAYARAM MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in the suit O.S. 259 of 1956, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant before us. The said suit was filed by the respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 6600 as assignee of two hundies, Exts. A -1 and A -2, (which are now admitted to be promissory notes), executed by the appellant for Rs. 4000 and Rs. 1000 on 6 -2 -1952 in favour of one Rukmaniammal. Of the several pleas raised by the defendant the two pleas that were pressed before us are: (1) the amounts mentioned in the hundies are payable at a specified place, Madras and as there was no presentment of the promissory notes to the defendant for payment, the plaintiff has no right to maintain the suit: (2) the promissory notes were not supported by consideration, and that the defendant signed two blank, hundi forms and left the same with one T. S. Shanmugham, the husband of Rukmaniammal aforesaid, with a view to enable Shanmugham to raise money thereon, that the defendant's signature was obtained only by way of additional security and that the defendant did not have the benefit of the borrowing.

(2.) THE learned City Civil Judge held that the assignment of the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff was only for purposes of collection, and that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder in due course. On the merits he held that the plea of the defendant that he signed blank hundies was a false one, that the promissory notes were fully supported by consideration, and that sum of Rs. 5000 was paid to the defendant when he executed the hundies. He, however, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that there was no presentment of the promissory notes as required by S. 69 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But on appeal by the plaintiff, Ramakrishnan J. came to a contrary conclusion and held that S. 69 requiring presentment of a promissory note would not apply to the instant case as the place of payment specified is a big city, Madras, and not a specified address in the city of Madras. On the merits he agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the promissory notes were fully supported by consideration, that Rs. 5000 was actually advanced as a loan to the defendant, and that his defence that he signed blank hundies merely with a view to accommodate Shanmugham, aforesaid, was totally false. In this view he decreed the suit as prayed for.

(3.) WE shall now take up the question relating to the want of presentment. The promissory note. Ex. A -1, is as follows: 8 annas Madras 6th February 1953