Adaikappa Chetty V. Letchuman Chetty

1938 Present: Maartensz and Koch JJ.

ADAIKAPPA CHETTY v. LETCHUMAN CHETTY.

290-D. C. Negombo, 10,207.

Promissory Note:-Document with an account followed by promise to pay balance due-Payee indicated with reasonable certainty-Restrictive endorsement-Bills of Exchange Ordinance, No. 25 of 1927, s. 35 (1).

A document was drawn up in the following terms:-Credit of Pana Lana Nawanna Suna Pana of Negombo. Debit of Ana Naha Theeanna Layna of the above place. Then followed a statement of accounts - showing that on a certain date a sum of Rs. 3,525 was due and a promise to pay ?to your order on demand Rs. 3,525 with interest at 1/2 per cent, per month". It was signed A. N. T. L. Letchuman. On the reverse side of the document were the following words:-The principal and interest herein mentioned shall be collected from the therein signed Ana Nana Theeanna Layna by Rawanna Mana Adaikappa Chettiar. (Signed) P. L. N. S. P. Suppramaniam.

Held, that the document was a promissory note and that the payee was indicated with reasonable certainty.

Held, further, that the endorsement was a restrictive endorsement within the meaning of section 35 (1) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance, No. 25 of 1927.

THIS was an action on a promissory note brought by the plaintiff as endorsee against the defendant, the maker of the note. The District Judge gave judgment for the plaintiff. The main question argued in appeal was whether the document the terms of which are set out in the head-note was a promissory note.

N. E. Weerasooria (with him W. W. Mutturajah and H. A. Chandrasena), for defendant, appellant-The document sued upon has the characteristics not of a promissory note but merely of an account stated. The action is therefore barred by prescription. The payee is neither named nor adequately indicated by the letters P. L. N. S. P. There is also no proper endorsement but a mere written promise or direction (on the reverse side of the document) that the money ?shall be collected? by a certain person. These facts seems to indicate that it was not the intention of the parties to make a promissory note at all but a mere written memorandum, only of some obligation based upon a looking into of accounts between them. The holder of a note into whose hands it may lawfully come should be able to say without further inquiry who is liable to be sued upon the note. Every bill of exchange or promissory, note should be upon the face of it, a contract complete in itself. Even if the document has some or all of the properties of a valid note, it is the intention of the parties to create the obligations arising upon a promissory note that determines the true nature of the document-see Sibbree v. Tripp [1 15 . W. & W. 23. ].

N. Nadarajah (with him G. E. Chitty), for plaintiff, respondent.-Every requirement of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance necessary for the creation of a valid promissory note is satisfied by the terms of the document sued upon.

As regards the payee's name it is only necessary that the payee should be indicated with reasonable certainty. See section 7 (1) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance. Particularly among the Natucottai Chettiars who are admittedly the parties to this transaction, it is common to use the initials alone to designate a party. The endorsement though usually by a signature only, does not become invalid by reason of the use of additional words. At lowest there is here a restrictive indorsement contemplated by the Ordinance. See section 35 (1) of the Act. Even a mere agent for collection who is a holder can sue. See Halsbury (Hailsham ed.), vol. II., p. 657. Even if a wrong name has been given to the payee it can be shown whom the parties intended. See Willis v. Barrett1. See also the case of Green v. Davis". The defendent here has actually admitted that the person referred to was Suppramaniam Chettiar. That the document was intended as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document