Kailasam Pillai vs Chidambaram Pillai

Walsh, J.—Defendant 2 raised the point in his written statement that he had had no notice of dishonour. The lower Court has not dealt with the point and it is clear from the ruling in Hemadri v. Seshamma 1931 Mad. 113, which follows Jagannatha Reddiar v. Lakshamna Reddiar 1925 Mad. 132, that in the absence of notice of is honour the endorsee of a promissory note is not liable unless a special contract to the contrary is proved. Plaintiff no doubt sets up such a contract in the plaint. Defendant 2 denied it and no evidence of it was adduced. This petition must therefore be allowed with costs throughout and the decree as against defendant 2 set aside.