Sakshi, Banaras Hindu University.

SINGHESHWAR MANDAL
V.

GITA DEVI AND ANR

Citation: AIR 1975 PAT 81

Bench: Justice H Agrawal.

PETITIONER

SINGHESHWAR MANDAL

       Vs.

DEFENDANT

GITA DEVI AND ANR

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25-02-1974

FACTS OF THE CASE.

A money suit was filed against defendant no 1 by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a
sum on the basis of a handnote admittedly executed by in favour of Dhir Narain Chand, the
father of the plaintiff. the plaintiff's father had expressed his desire in presence of the
defendant second party that the amount in respect of this loan would go to the plaintiff alone
to which the defendant second party expressly consented. The defendant second party are the
two widows of Dhir Narain Chand. Later Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement and
contested the suit on various grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff being not the holder of the
handnote in question, she had no right to institute the suit in question. The trial court
dismissed the suit but on appeal, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has decreed the
same and, therefore, this second appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

I. Whether the appeal should be decreed or not?
HOLDING
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below was set
aside and the order of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial court was restored. As there is
no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, direction for no order as to costs was
given.

RATIONALE
Although the handnote in question is not indorsed in favour of the plaintiff nor does the recital in any
way indicate the intention of the creditor for the payment of the ultimate dues by the debtor to the
plaintiff. The term "Holder" has been defined in Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
according to which the holder of a promissory note, inter alia, means a person entitled in his own
name to the possession thereof and to receive or recover the amount due thereon from the parties
thereto. Admittedly, therefore, the plaintiff does not answer any of the descriptions mentioned above
and the defendant was not bound to make the payment to her of the dues in question and as such the
plaintiff has no right to institute the suit.