(1.) THE point for determination in this revision petition is whether an endorsee of a simple on demand promissory note will be entitled to a decree against an endorser without proof of presentment for payment to the maker and without notice of dishonour to the endorser.
(2.) THE suit was on a promissory note for Rs. 240 executed on 12 -8 -1944 by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2. On 14 -4 -1944, defendant 2 endorsed in favour of the plaintiff for consideration. The suit was filed on 13 -2 -1947. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendants failed to pay the amount on several oral demands and the registered notice sent to the defendants by the plaintiff on 10 -2 -1946 proved of no avail and hence the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit. Defendant 1 was ex parte. Defendant 2 pleaded that the moneys paid under the promissory note belonged to the plaintiff and that he was a name lender to the promissory note and that at the request of the plaintiff it was endorsed over to him. A decree was passed against both defendants.
(3.) IN my view of my accepting the finding of the lower Court that there were several oral demands and also that there was a written demand, Ex. A -2, it is to be examined whether the oral demands about which there was no evidence as to when they were made and under what circumstances, and Ex. A -2 would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of presentment for payment and notice of dishonour as provided in the Negotiable Instruments Act. Under Section 74, Negotiable Instruments Act, a negotiable instrument payable on demand must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after it is received by the holder. There is, however, no evidence to that effect in this case, excepting some demands made without any further particulars. Section 64 lays down that promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques must be presented for payment to the maker, acceptor or drawee thereof respectively by or on behalf of the holder as hereinafter provided. In default of such presentment the other parties thereto are not liable thereon to such holder. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referred me to Uppalapati Hemadri v. K. Seshamma : AIR1931Mad113 where it was held that such presentment for payment under Section 64 was necessary if the endorser is to be made liable. But the question is in what manner the presentment is to be made. Primal facie it appears to me, reading the language of the sections that the presentment must be made personally and the note has to be produced. In this case the learned counsel for the respondent argues that when there is an oral demand it must be presumed that he must hare had the promissory note ready with him to be discharged when demand was made by the maker. I would be inclined to accept this contention if only there was some evidence in the case that an oral demand was made at a particular time and the circumstances under which it was made. Further to satisfy the requirements of Section 74, it is necessary that the negotiable instrument which was in this case a promissory note must be presented for payment within a reasonable time. In the absence of evidence it is impossible to say whether it was presented, if so, within a reasonable time. I do not think, therefore, that the note was presented for payment to the maker in order to make the endorser liable.