1. Scope

It is now fairly well-settled that no person can sue on a negotiable instrument unless he is named therein as the payee or unless he becomes entitled to it as indorsee or becomes the bearer of an instrument payable to bearer. In the Full Bench case reported in Subba Narayana Vathiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar,1 it has been held that in a suit on a negotiable instrument by the payee or indorsee, it is not open to the defendant to plead that the plaintiff is a mere benamidar not entitled to payment with a view to show that the note has been discharged by payment to real owner. Again in the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Bacha Prasad v. Janaki,2 it has been held that a person who is not a holder of a negotiable instrument cannot maintain a suit for recovery of money due under it even though holder is admittedly the benamidar and is impleaded in the suit. In the said decision, it has also been held that "a beneficiary cannot be called a holder of the instrument and payment to him cannot discharge the maker thereof unless the case falls under section 82(c) of the Act". So also, it has been held in the decision reported in Subharaya v. Abiram,3 that a beneficiary does not become a holder of the instrument even upon getting a declaration that he is the beneficial owner and the payee is only a benamidar. In this connection it has to be noted that Allahabad and Rajasthan High Courts have taken a slightly different view and held that in certain cases a beneficiary may maintain a suit on a negotiable instrument "if holder is also made a party to the suit" (see Sewa Ram v. Hoto Lal4 and Bhagirath v. Gulabkanwar,5). In the Rajasthan case there is a detailed discussion as to the circumstances under which a suit by a benamidar can be allowed to be maintained. Section 78 of the Act makes it clear that subject to the provisions of section (82) of the Act payment