LAWS(MAD)-1948-12-7

NALLAMILLI VEERAYAMMA Vs. KARRI AMMIREDDI

Decided On December 02, 1948
NALLAMILLI VEERAYAMMA Appellant
V/S
KARRI AMMIREDDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition arises out of a suit by a Hindu widow to recover a debt due under a promissory note, dated 24th May, 1945, executed by the defendant in favour of her husband, Ammireddi, since deceased. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the findings that Ammireddi and his father were members of a joint Hindu family, that it was the father who advanced the loan to the defendant though the pronote was taken in the name of the son and that subsequent to the death of the payee Ammireddi, the debtor repaid the moneys due under the promissory note to the father and obtained a discharge evidenced by a receipt Ex. D. 1, dated 18th January, 1946.

(2.) THE plaintiff has preferred this civil revision petition on the ground that the payment to the father after the death of the son does not operate as a valid discharge of the defendant's liability and the plaintiff alone as the widow of the payee is the" holder " entitled to give a discharge. The contention of the respondent is that the debt was a family debt and the defendant obtained a valid discharge of his liability by payment to the father and manager. As a result of the combined operation of Sections 8, 32 and 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the person to whom payment should be made in order to discharge the maker of the note from liability under the instrument is the " holder " as defined in Section 8. This Court has repeatedly held that it is only the payees named in the instrument or their endorsees that can be said to be " holders " and undisclosed principals and beneficial owners of the debt are not entitled to sue the maker of the note. Notwithstanding the respondent's criticism of this view as being arbitrary and highly technical and notwithstanding the views of some other High Courts, I consider it futile to embark upon a further discussion of that question. Giving full effect, as I must, to the decision in Subba Narayana Vadhyar v. : (1906)16MLJ508 the plaintiff's husband must be held to have been the holder of the note during his lifetime notwithstanding the fact that the money lent under the note was advanced from family funds. If the plaintiff's husband had lived, he alone could have sued on the note and not the father. So much is established by the decision cited on behalf of the petitioner. See Nelli Amma v. Krishna Panicker, 1910 M.W.N. 211 and Arunachala Reddi v. Subba Reddi, (1907) 17 M.L.J. 393. It does not however follow that the other members of the family have no enforceable rights in respect of the debt apart from the note. See the decisions in Gopal Pilled v. Kothandarama Iyer, (1934) 67 M.L.J. 843 :, I.L.R. 57 Mad. 1082 and Venkatarama Reddiar v. Valli Akkal, (1934) 68 M.L.J. 81 :, I.L.R. 58 Mad. 693

(3.) THE civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs which I fix at Rs. 25.