(1.) THIS appeal filed by the plaintiff arises out of a suit filed by plaintiff as transferee of a pronote for Rs 1,000 dated March 14, 1959 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant No. 4 who in turn is said to have sold the pronote to the plaintiff under a separate registered sale-deed dated December 12, 1960. Defendants 2 and 3 are said to be members of the family of defendant 1. The plaintiff in his suit claimed a decree against defendants 1, 2 and 3 as members of a joint family. The only point which was urged on behalf of defendant No. 2 who alone contested the suit is that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course in respect of the suit promissory note and therefore the suit by him is not maintainable Both the Courts below accepted this contention of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.
(2.) IN this second appeal Mr. S. Mohanty appearing for the plaintiff-appellant submits that assuming that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course even so the plaintiff is entitled to a decree on the promissory note as holder of the promissory note.
(3.) SECTION 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act defines 'holder' as follows: