Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1092 (MAD)

Karuppanna Gounder v. P. Samiyappa Gounder

2004-08-23

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2004
COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals have been filed by the plaintiff, who was unsuccessful before the Courts below. The appellant/plaintiff filed both the appeals to recover the amount due on the suit promissory notes each for Rs.4,000 by the respondent in these appeals, executed in favour of the assignor Sellappa Gounder, which have been made over to the appellant in these appeals. Both the suits have been resisted mainly on the ground that both the suit promissory notes are only to the extent of Rs.2,000. 2. Considering the evidence adduced on both sides namely plaintiff and defendant, the First Appellate Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff is not a bona fide holder in due course. The plaintiff has filed both the second appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission in both the appeals: (i) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the appellant is not a bona fide holder in due course? (ii) Whether the provisions of Sec.59 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have to be invoked? The learned counsel mainly argued that Sec.9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is applicable to the promissory notes and as such the plaintiff in both the suits entitled for the suit claims, he being" the bona fide holder in due course. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in Ponmalai Gounder v. Kailasa Gounder, 1982 L. W. 698, wherein it was observed as follows: "the presumption in Sec. 118 would apply and it is not neutralised by any other provisions. The doctrine of maturity in relation to a holder in due course is, in the nature of things inapplicable to a promissory note.) It sounds strange to one’s judicial sense that a promissory note which is payable on demand, and therefore, immediately, reached maturity at the moment of its execution, and at the same time a holder in due course in respect of the promissory note should be one who gets an assignment thereof before its maturity. Such a view involves contradictory promises." 4. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff P.W.1 has spoken that only after paying necessary amount, he obtained the suit promissory notes assigned in his favour. Such a view involves contradictory promises." 4. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff P.W.1 has spoken that only after paying necessary amount, he obtained the suit promissory notes assigned in his favour. As such, the respondents in both these appeals are liable to pay the amount as claimed in the suits. Though the defendant claimed that only Rs.2,000 was borrowed from the plaintiff, he had executed the suit promissory notes for Rs.4,000, as per the procedure adopted in the village. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove the same. It has been denied in the reply notices. The defendants in both the suits also failed to examine the attestor. Therefore, considering all these aspects, it is clear that the appellant/plaintiff in both the suits is entitled to the amount as claimed for. The First Appellate Court has not recorded proper finding and it is to be set aside. Both the second appeals are allowed with costs. The judgment and decree in A.S.No.44 of 1993 and A.S.No.69 of 1003 are set aside. Both the suits are decreed as prayed for.