105-NLR-NLR-V-69-SEYED-MOHAMED-Appellant-and-M.-IBRAHIM-Repondent.pdf
Seyed Mohamad v. Ibrahim
489
1966Present: Sansoni, C.J.
SEYED MOHAMED, Appellant, and, M. IBRAHIM, RespondentS. C. 10/66—C. R. Colombo, 87843
cheque—Hffect of crossing it with words “Not Negotiable''—Bills of ExchangeOrdinance {Cap. 82), s.81.
When a crossed cheque which bears on it the words “ Not Negotiable ” islost, any person who takes that cheque thereafter has no title to it and cannotpass title to it.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Requests, Colombo.
J. W. S ubasinghe, for the Defendant-Appellant.
Arulambalam, for the Plaintiff-Respondent.
Cur. adv. wli.
480
8ANSONI, C.J.—Seyed Mohamtd v. Ibrahim
October 29,1966. Sansoni, C.J.—
The judgment under appeal cannot stand because the Commissioner ofBequests has ignored the provisions of section 81 of the Bills of ExchangeOrdinance (Cap. 82).
He has accepted the evidence of the first defendant’s witness Maharoof,who said that he lost the cheque in question. That cheque is crossedand bears on it the words “Not Negotiable”. Consequently, anyperson who took that cheque after it was lost had no title to it. Therefore, -the person who endorsed the cheque to the plaintiff had no right toendorse it or to negotiate it in any way. The plaintiff got no title toit, and had no right to sue the first defendant on it.
The plaintiff is certainly not a holder in due course as the Commissionerseems to have thought.
1 set aside the judgment and decree and dismiss the plaintiff’s actionagainst the first defendant with costs in both courts.
Appeal allowed.