RAMANADHAN CHETTY Vs. KATHA VELAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We must accept the finding that the promissory note sued on was executed to Ulagappa Chettiar as trustee of the charity. The question whether the said payee could alone have maintained the suit without joining his co-trustees was not raised in the Court below. It would depend in each case upon the powers and duties of the managing trustee whether such a person is competent to represent the trust solely. That question has not been put in issue and we are not prepared to allow it to be debated now.

(2.) Another question which was argued at some length need not be discussed now, namely, whether if there is an assignment of the note by the act of parties, it should not be only in the mode prescribed by the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is a considerable conflict of opinion on this question and it can only be settled by a reference to a Full Bench.

(3.) The possibility of transfer of right in the note by operation of law has not been the subject of judicial pronouncements to any considerable extent. In this Presidency, apart from certain observations of Miller, J. in Sowcar Lodd Govinda Doss v. Muneppa Naidu (1908) I.L.R 81 M. 584 the matter is res integra.