K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 21,852. 35 ps. , being the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the transfer of the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff is not valid and legal and not enforceable against the defendants 1 and 2.

( 2 ) THE averments in the plaint are as follows : The plaintiff is a partner of the registered firm, Prakash Financiers. Defendants 1 and 2 borrowed from Prakash Financiers a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 in cash agreeing to pay the same with interest at 18% per annum and executed the suit promissory note. The suit promissory note was transferred in the name of the plaintiff by the managing partner of Prakash Financeirs on 17-3-1973. Subsequent to this transfer, the plaintiff demanded defendants 1 and 2 to pay the amount, but they evaded. Therefore, the suit is filed against defendants 1 and 2 to pay the amount, but they evaded. Therefore, the suit is filed against defendants 1 and 2 and also against the 3rd defendant, a receiver who is managing the properties of the family of defendants 1 and 2.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed a written statement. They admitted the execution of the suit promissory note, but added that it was by way of renewal of an earlier transaction. One of the plead taken in the written statement is that they are not award of the transfer of the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and that the alleged transfer is not valid and legal and is not supported by consideration and that the plaintiff is not a bond fide holder-in-due course.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the necessary issue were framed. Issue No. 5 is, whether the plaintiff is a bona fide holder in due course. An additional issue were framed on 19-6-1977 and it is to be effect, whether the transfer of the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff is valid, legal and enforceable against defendants 1 and 2. On behalf of the plaintiff, P. Ws. 1 to 3 are examined and the plaintiff himself got examined as P. W. 1 Ex. A-1 is the suit promissory note and the endorsement of transfer on Ex. A-1 is marked as Ex. A-2. On behalf of defendants D. W. 1 is examined and Ex. B-1 notice issued on behalf of the defendants to the plaintiffs advocate is marked.

( 5 ) IT was contended before the lower Court that the transfer of Ex. A-1 in favour of the plaintiff is not legal and valid and not binding on defendants 1 and 2 in view of S. 19 (2) (c) of the Partnership Act. Reliance was also placed before the lower Court on a decision of this Court in B. Venkatapayya v. A. Venkata Ramanjaneyuly, (1967) 1 ALT 381. The trial Court relying upon S. 19 (2) (c) and the decision of this Court held that the managing partner (P. W. 2) had no implied authority to transfer Ex. A-1 in favour of the plaintiff thereby relinquishing a portion of the claim by the firm and in that view it was held that the transfer is not valid and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

( 6 ) IN this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ex. A-1 was transferred in favour of the plaintiff by the partners of the firm at the time of dissolution for a consideration of Rs. 15,000. 00 and therefore is bona fide holder-in-due-course and that the transfer is legal inasmuch as the consideration has been received by the firm and that subsequent to the transfer the suit promissory note has been treated as his personal property and therefore he is entitled to claim the same under the promissory note from the defendants, who are liable to pay. It is also his submission that the transfer was a matter between one partner and the other partner of the firm and that the defendants who are third parties have no right whatsoever to question such a transfer. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that under S. 19 (2) (c) of the partnership Act, the i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document