SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Insurance and Banking Law

Ponnuswami Chettiar v. P. Vellaimuthu Chettiar, AIR 1957 Mad. 355

Ponnuswami Chettiar v. P. Vellaimuthu Chettiar, AIR 1957 Mad. 355

FACTS-

  • The petitioner, Panchapakesa Ayyar, was sued by Vallaimuthu Chettiar for the recovery of Rs. 1177-8-0, which included the principal and interest due on a promissory note.
  • The promissory note in question was dated 16-11-1950 and was for Rs. 1000.
  • The petitioner claimed the promissory note lacked consideration, but the court dismissed this defence as the note was found to be supported by consideration.
  • Secondly, the petitioner argued that the promissory note was invalid because it was not executed in favour of a known and certain person, as the name of the payee was not mentioned.
  • The description of the payee in the promissory note was "son of Palaniandi Chettiar." However, there were reportedly three other sons of Palaniandi Chettiar, although they had no involvement in the transaction.
  • Despite the absence of the payee's name, it was clear that Vallaimuthu Chettiar, the plaintiff, was the lender, as confirmed by his testimony. The petitioner did not dispute this fact.

.

ISSUE-

 

  • whether the absence of the name of the payee in a promissory note will make the note invalid, though the payee was known with certainty even at execution?

 

RULE-

  • The absence of the name of the payee in a promissory note will make the note invalid, when the payee was known with certainty.

HELD-

    • The court observed that while the promissory note lacked the specific name of the payee, it provided a clear description identifying the lender. This description was deemed sufficient, considering that both parties were aware of the lender's identity at the time of execution.
    • The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the promissory note should be invalidated due to the absence of the payee's name, emphasizing that modern legal principles prioritize substance over formality.

 

  • Section 96 of the Indian Evidence Act will apply, as held by the learned Judges at the new trial and evidence regarding the name could be let in in such cases. The ruling in Abdul Hakim Ear Mahomed v. Ebrahim Solaiman Salehjee and Co. [AIR 1921 Cal 480], shows this.
  • In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner's defence and upheld the validity of the promissory note, ruling in favour of the plaintiff