SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(AP) 46

PARTHASARATHI
Maddi Rama Kotaiah – Appellant
Versus
Maddi Seshamma – Respondent


PARTHASARATHI, J.

( 1 ) THE question raised in this revision petition is whether an oral assignment of a promissory note and the grant of a succession certificate based on the recognition of such oral assignment are valid.

( 2 ) THE competing claims in regard to the right under the promissory note are made by the heir at law on the one had and the person who sets up the oral assignment, on the other. The first Additional District Judge, Guntur confirmed the finding of the District Munsif that the oral assignment was proved. He also came to the conclusion that the transfer of an actionable claim under a promissory note need not necessarily be effected by instruments in writing.

( 3 ) IT is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the view of the District Judge is erroneous. Section 46 of the Negotiable Instruments Act enacts, inter alia, that a promissory note payable to bearer is negotiable by the delivery thereof whereas the one that is payable to order is negotiable by the holder by endorsement and delivery thereof. In the instant case, it is not stated by Counsel on either side that the promissory note is payable to bearer. The case comes under the second category men












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top