Suppai Goundan and Another vs Kandaswami Goundan

Wallace, J.—This appeal may be disposed of on the short ground that there is no evidence that the plaintiff is the holder of the pronote. The

allegation in the plaint was that the guardian of the minor son of the payee transferred the pronote to plaintiff in her capacity as guardian. In the

Written statement defendants challenged this allegation and put plaintiff to strict proof of it. Plaintiff has made no attempt to prove it. The

endorsement of transfer is signed by the lady in her personal capacity, and there is nothing either in the body of the note or appended to the

signature to show that she signed as guardian. Both the lower Courts have merely inferred, on no evidence, that she signed as guardian. The oases

relied (sick)n by the District Munsif are of very little assistance, since in each case it has to be decided on its own facts whether the endorser

endorsed as guardian or not.

When plaintiff was put to proof of this point and called no evidence, his suit must fail. It is not a case where evidence was not available. The

widow, signatory could have been called and attestors could have been examined on the point.

I find that the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain this suit and that the lower Courts have erred in law in coming to a finding of fact on no

evidence. I reverse the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss plaintiff''s suit with costs to defendants throughout.