HARKISHORE BARUA Vs. GURA MIA CHOWDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit based on a promissory note, payable on demand. The note purports to have been executed by the principal defendant, (defendant 1), in favour of the pro forma defendant, (defendant 2), but the plaintiff claimed to have advanced the money and to be the real or beneficiary owner of the note. The plaintiff further alleged that the pro forma defendant was merely his benamidar, and the pro forma defendant himself deposed to this effect.

(2.) The trial Court did not record any clear finding as to whether it had or had not been proved that the principal defendant had borrowed the money and executed the note but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no cause of action, as he had failed to prove that the money belonged to him.

(3.) The lower appellate Court, while expressing some doubt as to the correctness of the view taken by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal on another ground, viz., that under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only the holder of the note could sue thereon and that the plaintiff had therefore no cause of action.