The holder of a promissory note is entitled to maintain a suit on the note for the recovery of the money due thereon, even if he is not the real beneficiary.

Narayan, J.

1. The appeals and the Civil Revision have been heard together, because they raise common questions of law and fact. The Civil Revision is directed, against the decision of the Small Cause Court Judge, Arrah, made in Small Cause Court Suit No. 9/9 of 1951. The plaintiff Sheoshankar Pandey had sued the defendant Padumdeo Narayan Singh on the basis of a handnote dated 22-6-1950 alleged to have been executed by the defendant in his favour on a cash advance of Rs. 400/-. The suits giving rise to the Second Appeals had also been instituted by the same Sheoshankur Pandey against Awadhbihari Singh and Balbhadra Singh, the brothers of Padumduo Narayan Singh (the defendant in Small Cause Court suit No. 9/9 of 1951) on the basis of handnotes executed on the same date on which Padumdeo had executed the handnote which was the basis of the claim against him. In these two suits also the plaintiff had alleged that on 22-6-1950 the handnotes were executed in his favour by the defendants after cash advances made by him. In each of these two suits the claim was based on three handnotes, each of Rs. 400, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The defence substantially was that there had been no cash advance by the plaintiff 10 any of the defendants and, no handnote had been executed in his favour. According to the allegation of the defendants, the three brothers, Awadhbihari, Balbhadra and Padumdeo who are the members of a joint Hindu family, had purchased certain properties from one Ramasis Singh under a sale-deed dated 14-6-1950 for Rs. 14,000/-. This sale-deed was registered on 21-6-1950, and out of the consideration Rs. 10,500 was to be paid in cash and Rs. 3,500 had to be left in deposit with the vendees for payment of certain prior encumbrances. The vendees were, however, notable to pay the entire amount of Rs. 10,500 and after having paid Rs. 7,700 they executed 7 handnotes of Rs. 400 each in favour of Ramasis. Three of the handnotes are by Awadhbihari, three by Balbhadra and one by Padumdeo. It was further alleged by the defendants that when, they made over these handnotes to Ramasis the body of the handnotes had not been filled up, though it now appears that the body of the handnotes has been written out describing the plaintiff therein as the beneficiary.

3. The learned Small Cause Court Judge rejected his defence entirely and holding that there had been a cash advance by the plaintiff he decreed the Small Cause Court suit in full. In the Money Suits the learned Munsif accepted the defence and came to the finding that there had been no transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants and that the handnotes had been executed in favour of Ramasis for the unpaid consideration money. The learned Munsif was of opinion that even on the basis of the provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree in these two suits. In the result he dismissed the suits, and the plaintiff had to file appeals before the District Judge of Shahabad. The appeals were heard by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Arrah, who while agreeing with the learned Munsif in his finding that the handnotes had really been executed by the defendant in lieu of the unpaid consideration money held that the plaintiff being the holder of the instruments was entitled to a decree.

4. The defendants of the two Money Suits have, therefore, preferred these appeals, and the defendant of the Small Cause Court suit has filed this application in Civil Revision.

5. In my opinion, the appeals as well as the Civil Revision are absolutely without any merit, the question of law arising in this case and canvassed in the Courts below having been finally determined by authoritative decisions of this Court and other Courts. It is now a very well settled proposition of law that it is the holder of the promissory note who alone is entitled to maintain a suit on the note for the recovery of the money due there