MADDI RAMA KOTAIAH Vs. MADDI SESHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this revision petition is whether an oral assignment of a promissory note and the grant of a succession certificate based on the recognition of such oral assignment are valid.

(2.) The competing claims in regard to the right under the promissory note are made by the heir at law on the one had and the person who sets up the oral assignment, on the other. The first Additional District Judge, Guntur confirmed the finding of the District Munsif that the oral assignment was proved. He also came to the conclusion that the transfer of an actionable claim under a promissory note need not necessarily be effected by instruments in writing.

(3.) It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the view of the District Judge is erroneous. Section 46 of the Negotiable Instruments Act enacts, inter alia, that a promissory note payable to bearer is negotiable by the delivery thereof whereas the one that is payable to order is negotiable by the holder by endorsement and delivery thereof. In the instant case, it is not stated by Counsel on either side that the promissory note is payable to bearer. The case comes under the second category mentioned above and is negotiable by endorsement and delivery. Section 48 reads thus;