Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BHIMASANKARAM, S.QAMAR HASSAN
Punyamurthy Venkata Satyanarayana Shetti - Appellant
Versus
Gunda Subbaiah Chetty - Respondent
Decided On : 07-14-60
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 - SECTION 78, 81, 82(C), 8, 10 - PAYMENT OF PROMISSORY NOTE - PAYMENT TO HOLDER - PAYMENT TO MEMBER OF JOINT HINDU FAMILY - NOT VALID DISCHARGE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant made a promissory note in favor of the 1st respondent. When the 1st respondent demanded payment, the appellant claimed to have paid the amount to the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent's adopted son. The 1st respondent sued the appellant and the 2nd respondent, and the appellant raised the defense that he had paid the amount to the 2nd respondent, who was a member of a joint Hindu family with the 1st respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant's plea was not a good one in law and that the suit was rightly decreed.
Issues: Whether payment of a promissory note to a member of a joint Hindu family, when the note is executed in favor of its manager, operates as a discharge of the note.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that payment of a promissory note must be made to the holder of the instrument in order to discharge the maker or acceptor (Section 78). The holder is the person entitled in his own name to the possession of the instrument and to receive or recover the amount due thereon (Section 8). The 2nd respondent was not the holder of the note, as he was not in possession of it and could not have shown it to the appellant before payment or delivered it to him on payment (Section 81). The court also held that Clause (c) of Section 82, which provides for discharge of a negotiable instrument by payment to a person in possession thereof in due course, did not apply because the note was not payable to bearer and the payment was not made in due course.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
( 2 ) THE learned District Judge held that the plea so raised is not a good plea in law. The question in the present appeal is whether his view is right. In our opinion, it is and we shall proceed to give our reasons.
( 3 ) NOW, it is enacted by Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that"subject to the provisions of Section 82, Clause (c) to which we shall presently refer) payment of the amount due on a promissory note must, in order to discharge the maker or accepter, be made to the holder of the instrument. "under Section 81, any person liable to pay, and called upon by the holder thereof to pay, the amount due on a promissory note, is before payment entitled to have it shown, and is on payment entitled to have it delivered up, to him. Section 82 deals with the mode of discharge of negotiable instruments in general and the effect of Clause (c) of that section is that a negotiable instrument is discharged from liability to all parties thereto, If the instrument is payable to Nearer, Or his been endorsed in blank and its maker, accepter or indorser makes payment in due course of the amount due thereon. It is also necessary to refer to the defini tion of "holder" which is contained in Section 8 and is a? follows;"the "holder" of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque means any person entitled in his own name to the possession thereof and to a receive or recover the amount due thereon from the parties thereto. " (We need not refer now to the other paragraph of that definition)Applying this definition to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the plaintiff the payee under the suit note is the holder; he is the person "entitled in his own name to the possession thereof and to receive or recover the amount due thereon" from the defendant. The 2nd respondent was clearly not the holder; he was not in possession at all of the note and if the appellant exercised his right under Section 81, he could not have even shown it to him before payment, much less deliver it to hint on payment. The payment, therefore to the 2nd respondent was not a payment to the holder falling under Section 78.
( 4 ) IT is urged however that payment made to a member of a joint Hindu family when a promissory note is executed in favour of its manager, would operate by way of discharge of the promissory note. This contention is clearly not supported by the language of the Negotiable Instruments Act, S
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.