KUNJU PILLAI AND ORS. (L.RS.) Vs. PERIASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff was the petitioner in this Court. After filing the Civil Revision Petition, he died on 22nd January, 1966 and on an application by his legal representatives, they were brought on record as the present petitioners in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 4412 of 1966. It is significant that at the time when the legal representatives of the original petitioner desired to bring themselves on record, there was no opposition by the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted the action against the defendant on the foot of a promissory note, of which he secured an assignment from the original payee. The assignment, however, was for purposes of collection and that this is so, is not in dispute. The original payee died after such endorsement in favour of the petitioner. After the death of the original payee, the petitioner instituted this suit on the foot of such an assignment of the promissory note Exhibit 1 in his favour. The suit was resisted on the ground that since the original payee died, the endorsee has no further cause of action, as the agency which was expressly created by such an endorsement should be deemed to have been terminated by the death of the original payee.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif accepted the contention of the defendant that on the death of the original payee, the endorsement made prior to his death by the original payee, which according to him, created a power equivalent to that of an agent terminated with the death of the original payee within the meaning of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act. He, therefore, dismissed the suit mainly basing his reasoning on the ground that the relationship between the original payee and the endorsee is that of principal and agent and such agency having been terminated by the death of the principal, the agent can no longer institute an action on the strength of such an endorsement. The original petitioner came up in revision before this Court attacking this reasoning of the learned District Munsif. As already stated during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition the legal representatives of the original petitioner were brought on record and they are the contesting petitioners before me. I shall consider the question whether such contesting petitioners have a cause of action to continue and agitate the relief in this Civil Revision Petition by themselves at a later stage. It is, however, necessary to dispose of the primary question, whether the relationship between the original payee and the endorsee is that of principal and agent and whether the reasoning of the learned District Munsif is correct.