SINNACHAMI CHETTIAR Vs. RAMASAMI CHETTIAR (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul dated 11 March, 1936, setting aside the decree of the District Munsif of Periakulam dated 28 February, 1935, in O.S. No. 70 of 1934 and remanding the suit for fresh disposal after deciding certain issues framed by the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The suit was by an indorsee of a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of one Subbayyan Chettiar, the endorser. The issues framed by the District Munsif were: (1) Is the full discharge pleaded true? (2) Is the plaintiff not a bona fide holder in due course? (3) Is the defendant entitled to raise the plea of discharge as contended in his written statement?

(3.) In substance, the defence was that the promissory note had been executed in favour of Subbayyan Chettiar as a benamidar, the beneficiary and the person who lent the money under the promissory note being Ramalingam Chettiar, the brother-in-law of Subbayyan Chettiar. The plaintiff and his brother Ramalingam were members of a joint Hindu family of which Ramalingam was the manager. The defendant pleaded two payments to Ramalinga Chettiar the earlier of which was admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint, but the latter was not referred to at all in the plaint. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the subsequent payment also being one alleged to have been made not to Subbayyan Chettiar, the payee under the note, but to Ramalinga Chettiar, the payment could not be pleaded as a discharge of the suit claim.