Subramanya Tevan and Others vs Arunachala Tevan and Another

In Ramanuja Ayyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar ILR (1904) M. 205 it was held that under the Negotiable Instruments Act the only person

entitled to sue on a promissory note was the payee or the holder. The decision in this case was expressly approved by the Full Bench in Subba

Narayana Vathiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar ILR (1906) M. 88. The attention of the lower appellate Court was not called to Ramanuja Ayyangar v.

Sadagopa Ayyangar ILR (1904) M. 205. On the authority of this case, we must hold that the plaintiff, not being the payee named in the note, was

not entitled to sue.

The note sued on in the present case is not a negotiable instrument under the definition contained in Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, whereas it would appear that the note sued on in Ramanuja Aiyyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar ILR (1904) M. 205 was a negotiable

instrument. But the fact that the instrument is not negotiable, in our view, makes no difference as regards the question before us. Section 78 draws

no distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable instruments.

We do not think that the present case can be distinguished from the cases to which we have referred by reason of the fact that the payee named

in the note was made one of the defendants in the suit.

On the authority of the cases to which we have referred we must allow the appeal and restore the decree of the Munsif dismissing the suit with

costs. In the circumstances we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court.