JUDGMENT

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:— In this appeal an important question touching upon the interpretation of Section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act for short) defining holder in due course falls for consideration. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala confirming the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry in Original Suit No. 74 of 1975. To appreciate the question involved it becomes necessary to state the relevant facts and while stating so we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit for convenience sake.

2. The plaintiff Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. is a banking company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Head Office in Trichur and branches at various places. The first defendant firm consisting of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as partners who are brothers, was doing business in Tellicherry in hill products and they were allowed credit facilities by the plaintiff Bank, like accommodation by way of Hundi discount, key loan and cheque purchases up to a limit of Rs. 35,00,000/-. A promissory note was executed by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of their mother, the 5th defendant for an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/-