GADADHAR SAMANTARAY Vs. DAMO BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of plaintiff's claim on a promissory note dated July 11, 1954 for a sum of Rs. 112-8-0 which was rejected by the Courts below mainly on the finding that the plaintiff's claim on the basis of the suit promissory note Ext. 2 is not maintainable for the reasons discussed hereunder.

(2.) THE facts so far as material for the purpose of deciding the point in this appeal are briefly stated these: On July 11, 1954 the defendants executed the suit promissory note Ex. 2 for Rs. 112-8-0 in favour of one Bhikari Dalai. On April 20, 1962 the said Bhikari Dalai transferred the suit promissory note Ext. 2 in favour of the plaintiff after receiving a consideration of Rs. 220 and after making an endorsement thereon Ex. 2/c; the signature of the said Bhikari Dalai on the suit promissory note is Ext. 2/d. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants including therein his claim on the suit promissory note Ext. 2. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 the father of defendant No. 2. Among other defences taken by him it was contended that the plaintiff was not a "holder" or "holder in due course" within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act as there is no specific endorsement on the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts below accepted the defence contention and dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the suit promissory note Ext. 2 as not maintainable. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE short and simple reasoning on which the plaintiff's claim on the suit promissory note was rejected as stated in paragraph 4 of the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court, is this: