SARAJOO PD Vs. RAMPAYARI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this appeal arsse the plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 2459 and odd from defendant 1 being the amount proportionate to his liability under a handnote. It was alleged that plaintiff 2, defendant 1 and Chandrika Prasad father of defendant 3 executed the handnote in favour of defendant 4, benamidar for plaintiff l who actually advanced the amount for which the handnote was executed. The handnote was executed on 30th magh 1342, after which there was separation in the joint family. Plaintiff 2 and the proforma defendant 3 paid off their respective share of the debt and the present suit is brought for the share due from defendant l on the handnote. The main ground of defence was that the handnote was not genuine, that no consideration passed and that the suit was not maintainable. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the plaintiffs case and decreed the suit. This decree has been affirmed by the learned District Judge.

(2.) The first question to be determined in this appeal is whether the plaintiff who is not the holder of the promissory note can maintain a suit for the recovery of the amount due thereon even though the holder is admittedly the benamidar and is impleaded in the suit.

(3.) The answer to the question depends upon the construction of Sections 8 and 78, Negotiable Instruments Act.