A promissory note could be assigned otherwise than by an indorsement and the assignee thereof is certainly entitled to sue on the note.

( 1 ) THE defendant has brought this second appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Srikakulam confirming that of the District munsif of Rajam.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Rajam on the basis of a promissory note executed by the defendant on 8th May, 1946, in favour of her husband, -claiming to be an assignee of the promissory note from the latter. The consideration for this promissory note is the amount due under a contract entered into between her husband and the defendant on 12th October, 1945, for the supply of 400 bags of groundnut. It was made up of Rs. 1,000, being the balance of the advance received by the defendant, and a sum of Rs. 920 being the difference between the then market rate and the price at which the goods were agreed to be sold. The plaintiff became entitled to the suit promissory note by virtue of a settlement deed executed by her husband in her favour under which all his assets were transferred to her. The suit was resisted mainly on two defences, (1) that the contract upon which the suit promissory note was founded was hit at by the Oil Seeds (Forward contract) Prohibition Order of 1943, and therefore the consideration for the promissory note had failed, and secondly that as the suit promissory note was not endorsed in favour of the plaintiff, she could not maintain a suit on the promissory note. The trial Court decreed the suit negativing both the objections and it was confirmed, on appeal, by the Subordinate Judge.

( 3 ) IN support of this appeal filed by the aggrieved defendant against that judgment, the pleas which were unsuccessfully put forward before the Courts below have again been raised. I will first take up the argument based on the Oil Seeds (Forward Contract) prohibition Order of 1943. Section 3 of that Ordinance prohibits forward contracts by enacting "no person shall after the specified date for any classof oil seeds enter into any forward contract in any of those oil seeds".

( 4 ) IN the schedule to that order groundnut was included, which means that there can be no forward contracts from 31st May, 1943, even in respect of groundnuts. Subsequently a notification was issued by the Government of India in its S. D. Notification No. 1161, dated 16th February, 1944, excluding from the operation of section 3 "forward contracts for groundnut, linseed, mustard seed, rape seed or toria seed of specified quantities or, types and for specific delivery at a specified price not transferable to third parties. " it is manifest from this notification that forward contracts which are not transferable are saved. Therefore the question for consideration is whether the suit contract is one falling under the notification. As laid down in a number of rulings of the Madras High Court, Satyanarayanamurthy v. Sitaramayya and co. , (1950) 2 M. L. J. 557. Seetharamaswami v. Bhagavathi Oil Co. , (1951) 1 M. L. J. 147 : I. L. R. (1951) Mad. 723. Hussain Kasam Dada v. Kijayanagaram Commercial Association, (1954) 1 M. L. J. 27. to get the benefit conferred by the notification, it should be established that non-transferability is a term of the contract. In other words, if it could not be gathered from the document itself that it was1 not intended to be transferred, such a contract offends against the provisions of section 3, and would therefore be held to be void and unenforceable.

( 5 ) IN the last mentioned case Hussain Kasam Dada v. Vijayanayaram Commercial dissociation3, it was laid down that the contract was ab initio void. Bearing the principles stated in those cases, I have to see whether this contract attracts the notification in question. It has to be mentioned that there is a rubber stamp on the body of the document with the words "not transferable" and reliance is placed by the plaintiff on these words to claim exemption from the provisions of section 3. Mr. Venkatesam, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that as the rubber stamp is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document