CHUNDURU KRISHNAYYA Vs. KOLLURI SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case two interesting questions of law have been argued before me at some length, viz., (1) whether a promissory note executed by a lawful guardian of a minor for a debt binding on his estate can itself be sued upon or only the debt evidenced thereby can be sued for, and (2) whether an endorsee of such a promissory note can without any assignment of the debt sue on the promissory note for the recovery of the debt evidenced thereby.

(2.) The Courts below dismissed the suit out of which this second appeal arises. The plaintiff has appealed. The ground of the dismissal of the suit by the Courts below is that although by means of an amendment of the original plaint the plaintiff has raised the case of relief on the basis of the debt quite apart from and in addition to the promissory note basis, the endorsement of the promissory note does not per se carry with it the right to recover without an assignment of the debt itself which there is not. It is common ground before me that if this suit is to be decreed She case must go back to the lower appellate Court for a determination of the exact amount due on an application of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act which was not done by the Courts below.

(3.) On the first point the appellant's learned Counsel relies on the observations in the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court delivered by Ramesam, J., in a case reported in Satyanarayana V/s. Mallayya (1934) 68 M,LJ, 540 : I.L,R. 58 Mad. 735. The observations are at page 742 of the report and are as follows: It was suggested that in such a case the suit should be on the debt and not on the note. But this seems to be a merely verbal distinction and not one of substance; Krishna Chettiar v, Nagamania Animal (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 915. A note is only evidence of a debt. It is true that in the case of insufficiently stamped promissory notes parties are not allowed to fall back upon the debt where the debt and the making of the note were simultaneous. Such a principle is necessary to protect the interests of public revenue. It is not necessary to extend the principle beyond such a case. The respondents learned Counsel relies, as against the appellant's argument founded on these observations, on the adverse comment made on them by Varadachariar, J..in Narayanarao V/s. Venkatapayya , to the effect that it seemed to his Lordship too sweeping to say that for all purposes the distinction was unsubstantial. To take one instance, his Lordship stated, the difference would be very material when the Court is called upon to apply the provisions of Secs.120 and 121 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned advocate for the respondents has also drawn my attention to the ruling of a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court in Sivagurunatha V/s. Padmavathi , as shaking the authority of the Full Bench of three Judges reported in Satyanarayana V/s. Mallayya (1934) 68 M.L.J. 540 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 735 (F.B.).