P TALAMALAI CHETTY Vs. RATHINASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. A suit for recovery of money on a promissory note, initiated by him, has been dismissed by the Lower Court. As against the dismissal of the suit, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) In the written statement, the specific case of the defendant is that in a printed promissory note over the stamp he has signed and delivered the blank promissory note in the hands of the plaintiff.In fact he confirms the same in evidence when he was examined as D-W1. Unfortunately, the trial Court has held that the defendant has not even signed in Ex. A1 which is the promissory note. The lower Court relied upon some differences found in the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 with reference to passing of consideration, and dismissed the suit.

(3.) The Judgment of the Lower Court has to be set aside, in view of the provision of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Section 20 reads as thus :-'Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in India, and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount. Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder'.Further the learned authors of the Negotiable Instruments Act comment as follows :-