https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301962 The High Court concluded that a beneficiary cannot be considered a holder of a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Act. As the plaintiff was not the holder of the handnote in question, the court held that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit for recovery of money. Therefore, the trial court's decree against the petitioner (defendant No. 4) was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. The liability of defendants 1 to 3 was not a significant issue as their non-liability had been established in the lower courts and was not challenged in the High Court. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:30:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301962 The High Court concluded that a beneficiary cannot be considered a holder of a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Act. As the plaintiff was not the holder of the handnote in question, the court held that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit for recovery of money. Therefore, the trial court's decree against the petitioner (defendant No. 4) was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. The liability of defendants 1 to 3 was not a significant issue as their non-liability had been established in the lower courts and was not challenged in the High Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301962