G SWAMINATHAN Vs. BANUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O. S. No. 81 of 1990 before the Subordinate judge, Kumbakonam, are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE first respondent herein filed the above suit for recovery of amount on the basis of two promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the petitioners on 7. 2. 1986 and 14. 8. 1987 for Rs. 10,000 each. It is also alleged in the plaint that the promissory note dated 7. 2. 1986 is not barred since the same is acknowledged in the subsequent promissory note dated 14. 8. 1987. THE cause of action for the suit is stated to have arisen on the dates of promissory notes under the jurisdiction of Kumbakonam. A sum of rs. 28,750 is claimed as due to the plaintiff as on the date of suit with future interest.

(3.) IN this connection it is worthwhile to note that in a simple money suit based on a note, Negotiable INstruments Act governs the whole transaction. The question of benami and the right of a third person is not really a matter in issue. Under the provisions of the Negotiable INstruments act, a discharge can be had only on payment to the holder of the note and not to any other person. It is not open to a promisor of a note to contend that someone other than the holder on the face of it is the real owner of the note. It has special rules of evidence and presumption. Being documents relating to commercial transactions, the court is bound to give effect to the tenor of the document. That is why, in Uthaman Chettiar's case, 1955 M. W. N. 759:1955 l. W. 810: A. I. R. 1956 Mad. 155, this Court held that for impleading a third party invoking O. 8-A procedure, the contents of the promissory note, etc. have to be considered to find out whether there was any special circumstance. I do not think that any exception can be made for the enunciation of law made by the learned Judge.