1956 (3) TMI 56 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit by minor plaintiffs and their mother.
2. Consideration for the promissory note.
3. Misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit by Minor Plaintiffs and Their Mother:
The defendant contended that the suit was not competent as the minors were not the holders of the promissory note, which was executed in favor of their mother, Mst. Gulabkanwar. The court examined Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which states that payment must be made to the holder of the instrument to discharge the maker or acceptor. The court also considered Section 8, which defines the "holder" as the person entitled to possession and to receive or recover the amount due.

The court recognized two schools of thought: one that only the holder can sue, and another that the true owner can sue if they can secure an effective discharge for the maker. The court favored the latter view, stating that Section 78 does not explicitly preclude suits by persons other than the holder. The court held that the true owner could bring a suit if they can ensure a lawful discharge for the maker.

The court categorized various scenarios:
- If the holder sues alone, the suit is valid.
- If the true owner sues without the holder, the suit is not maintainable.
- If the true owner sues with the holder as a party, the suit is maintainable.
- If the holder is deceased, the legal representative can sue.

In this case, the suit was brought by Mst. Gulabkanwar and her minor sons, with Mst. Gulabkanwar being the holder. The court found the suit maintainable as she could provide a lawful discharge.

2. Consideration for the Promissory Note:
The defendant argued that no consideration was received for the promissory note. The court emphasized that the consideration followed from the grandfather of the minor plaintiffs, whose heirs they are. The court found this sufficient to support the consideration for the suit brought by the heirs. The contention that no consideration proceeded from Mst. Gulabkanwar was rejected as irrelevant.

3. Misjoinder of Plaintiffs and Causes of Action:
The defendant claimed misjoinder, arguing that Mst. Gulabkanwar's claim was based on the promissory note, while her sons' claim was based on the original consideration. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the suit was brought by the true owners (the minors) on the basis of the promissory note held by Mst. Gulabkanwar. The court found no misjoinder of plaintiffs or causes of action, as both the minors and their mother were properly impleaded.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court directed that all monies realized in execution of the decree shall enure to the credit of the plaintiffs Sampatchand and Suratsingh, with Mst. Gulabkanwar providing a discharge as the holder of the promissory note.