LAWS(PVC)-1907-12-12

SUBRAMANYA TEVAN Vs. ARUNACHALA TEVAN

Decided On December 11, 1907
SUBRAMANYA TEVAN Appellant
V/S
ARUNACHALA TEVAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Ramanuja Ayyangar V/s. Sadagopa Ayyangar (1904) I.L.R. 28 M. 205 it was held that under the Negotiable Instruments Act the only person entitled to sue on a promissory note was the payee or the holder. The decision in this case was expressly approved by the Full Bench in Subba Narayana Vathiyar V/s. Ramaswami Aiyar (1906) I.L.R. 30 M. 88. The attention of the lower appellate Court was not called to Ramanuja Ayyangar V/s. Sadagopa Ayyangar (1904) I.L.R. 28 M. 205. On the authority of this case, we must hold that the plaintiff, not being the payee named in the note, was not entitled to sue.

(2.) The note sued on in the present case is not a negotiable instrument under the definition contained in Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas it would appear that the note sued on in Ramanuja Aiyyangar V/s. Sadagopa Ayyangar (1904) I.L.R. 28 M. 205 was a negotiable instrument. But the fact that the instrument is not negotiable, in our view, makes no difference as regards the question before us. Section 78 draws no distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable instruments.

(3.) We do not think that the present case can be distinguished from the cases to which we have referred by reason of the fact that the payee named in the note was made one of the defendants in the suit.