SUBBARAJU Vs. SURYANARAYANA MURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seventeen Revision Petitions arise out of common judgment given by the District Munsif, Razole on 30th January, 1962 whereby he dismissed seventeen suits filed by the plaintiff on the foot of promissory notes as holder in due course. The essential facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me may briefly be stated : Sri Anantha Lakshmi Commercial Syndicate (hereinafter called the Svndicate) is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act. It was constituted solely for the purpose of running a chit fund business. There are two partners of the said firm one S. Trimurty and the other Bapanayya. It was alleged that on 8-11-58 the firm was dissolved. Bapanayya left the firm entrusting the whole business to S. Tnmurty. On that date, he endorsed the suit promissory notes in favour of S. Tnmurty. S. Trimurty thereafter endorsed all these promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore styling himself as holder in due course instituted the present suits on the foot of those promissory notes against several defendants for recovery of the amount due on those promissory notes together with interst thereon.

(2.) The written statement of all the defendants was that the endorsements made by Bapanayya in favour of S. Tnmurty were not valid, that there was no dissolutron of partnership and the endorsements made by S. Trimurty in iavoi of the plaintitf were also not valid, that the plaintitf is the co-son in law of S. Trimurty, that the chit fund was abruptly stopped by the two partners and in collusion with each other the promissory notes were transferred ultimatelv to the plaintiff, that the partnership firm was not entitled to the entire amount but only to a commission and that therefore S. Trimurty could not have tram ferred the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) On these pleadings proper enquiry was made. The learned District Munsif dismissed all the suits holding that the endorsements made by Bapanyya in favour of S. Tnmurty were invalid. He also held that the endorsements made bv S Trimurty in favour of the plaintiff were invalid, He found that the firm was only entitled to a commission and the entire amount was meant to be distributed amongst the subscribers of the chit fund, It was also held that the dissoluton deed, Ex. A-19, was brought up into existence subsequently in order to suppert the endorsements made by Bapanayya on 8-11-1958. It is this view of the learned District Munsif that is now disputed before me in these Revision Petitions' The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that endosements made by Bapanyya ware valid under the NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881. Bapanayya was one of the partners and he could make an endorsement in favour of S. Trimurty. It was also contended that S. Trimurty in any casecould endorse and transfer the promissory notes as managing partner of the firm in favour oi the plaintiff even if it is held that the firm was not dissolved and that Ex. A-19 was a subsequently got-up document. Is was also argued that if the endorsements are not valid under the NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881, they can in any case be treated as transfers of actionable claims under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act and the plaintiff would thus get the right to sue for the debt for which promissory notes were taken.