( 1 ) THE learned District Munsif found that the promissory note is supported by consideration, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, Basavayya, who is a transferee from the payee, had no parted with consideration for the transfer, and is, therefore, not a holder in due course.

( 2 ) THE trial Court had not understood the difference between a holder for collection and a holder in due course, which is well established in law. A holder in due course will be entitled to claim better rights than the transferor i. e. , any defect in title of the transferor will not affect the rights of the holder in due course. It is only where the transferee wants to claim higher rights than the transferor that he must satisfy the requirements of a holder in due course as laid down in section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, i. e. , for consideration he became the possessor of the instrument from the payee or endorsee before the amount mentioned in it became payable, and without having sufficient cause to believe that any defect in the title of the transferor existed.

( 3 ) IN the instant case, it is not defendants contention that the suit amount or any part of it