CHUNDURU KRISHNAYYA Vs. KOLLURI SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case two interesting questions of law have been argued before me at some length, viz., (1) whether a promissory note executed by a lawful guardian of a minor for a debt binding on his estate can itself be sued upon or only the debt evidenced thereby can be sued for, and (2) whether an endorsee of such a promissory note can without any assignment of the debt sue on the promissory note for the recovery of the debt evidenced thereby.

(2.) The Courts below dismissed the suit out of which this second appeal arises. The plaintiff has appealed. The ground of the dismissal of the suit by the Courts below is that although by means of an amendment of the original plaint the plaintiff has raised the case of relief on the basis of the debt quite apart from and in addition to the promissory note basis, the endorsement of the promissory note does not per se carry with it the right to recover without an assignment of the debt itself which there is not. It is common ground before me that if this suit is to be decreed the case must go back to the lower appellate Court for a determination of the exact amount due on an application of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act which was not done by the Courts below.

(3.) On the first point the appellant's learned counsel relies on the observations in the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court delivered by Ramesam J. in a case reported in Satyanarayana v. Mallayya, 58 Mad. 735 : (A. I. R. (22) 1935 Mad. 447 F.B.). The observations are at p. 742 of the report and are as follows: