Karnataka High Court
J. Rajanna Setty vs Patel Thimmegowda on 19 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR1998KANT86, [1998(79)FLR907], ILR1998KAR1825, 1998(1)KARLJ79, AIR 1998 KARNATAKA 86, (1998) ILR (KANT) 1825, (1998) 1 KANT LJ 79, (1998) 79 FACLR 907, (1999) 1 BANKLJ 507, (1998) 2 BANKCAS 343, (1998) 3 CIVLJ 404, (1998) 2 CURCC 246, (1998) 1 CIVILCOURTC 238, (1998) 2 BANKCLR 566
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for recovery of the money due on promissory note in Original Suit No. 139 of 1979 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore, was dismissed on 19-3-1983. Appeal preferred therefrom in Regular Appeal No. 6 of 1983 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Bangalore met with the same fate on 27-11-1987. Hence the second appeal.
2. The suit is based on the promissory note for the value of Rs. 15,000/-, out of which Rs. 11,400/- was claimed to have been paid by the defendant. Decree for the balance was sought for in the suit.
3. The defendant contends that he has signed a blank promissory note and given it to one Janardhana Setty. He also confirmed the payment of Rs. 11,400/- to the said Janardhana Setty. According to him Rs. 11,400/- was the amount borrowed by him, and the defendant was expecting the said Janardhana Setty to return the blank promissory note, but that was never to be. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal. The Courts below have completely gone wrong forgetting the law under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The signature of the defendant on the promissory note is admitted. Though he claims to have given a blank promissory note, he cannot escape his liability in view of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as extracted below:
"Inchoate stamped instruments:--
Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments, then in force in (India) and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same to any holder in due course for such amount:
Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder".
4. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are perverse, prima facie wrong, and suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. It is now significant to point out that the defendant's statement tally with the claim made by the plaintiff. The defendant says that he had paid Rs. 11,400/- which amount has been given credit to by the plaintiff in the suit. It is the further case of the defendant that he was demanding to return the promissory note, but that never came to be done. In this view of the admission, the Courts below ought to have granted decree as prayed for.
5. In this view, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside. The suit is decreed with costs and interest as prayed for and the second appeal is allowed.