High CourtsDivision Bench

C.R. Venkatarama Ayyar vs B.S. Krishnaswami Chettiar and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 9 March 1932 · Citation: AIR 1933 Mad 133 : (1932) 35 LW 755

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jackson, J
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 174 words

Jackson, J.—The question for our determination is whether a promissory note can be transferred otherwise than by endorsement. There is considerable clash of judicial opinion, the older case law inclining to the view that as provided by the Negotiable Instruments Act endorsement is necessary and the later case law to the view that a promissory note can be transferred like any other chose in action: c.f. (Munaluri) Narayanamoorthi and Another Vs. (Dwadasi) Vumamaheswarm and Others, . We see no reason to differ from the later course of decisions. It is strenuously argued that Section 137 T.P. Act, which exempts certain mercantile documents from the provisions of Section 130, T.P. Act, also denies to such documents the method of Section 130, T.P. Act. We see no reason to accept such an interpretation. Section 137 gives an extended privilege to mercantile documents, and in no way is restrictive. We agree with the lower appellate Court that the transfer in this case is effectively made by the deed. The suit must accordingly be decreed with costs throughout.