JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Plaintiff-Appellant to recover a certain sum of money due on a promissory note, on the allegation that the first Defendant Kedar Nath Dass executed the note on receipt of consideration in favor of the second Defendant Bhabani Churn Dutt, promising to pay the amount of the note to him or his order; that Bhabani Churn Dutt, on receipt of consideration from the Plaintiff, endorsed the note in favor of the 3rd Defendant, Lalit Mohun Seal; that a suit on the promissory note was brought by Lalit Mohun Seal, but the Defendant having raised the objection that he was only a benamidar, that suit was dismissed; that the Plaintiff has got the note endorsed to him by Lalit Mohun Seal; and that as the principal Defendant, that is Defendant No. 1, notwithstanding repeated demands, has not paid the money due, the Plaintiff is obliged to institute this suit. The defence of the principal Defendant, that is Defendant No. 1, was, that the Plaintiff has no cause of action, that the note was not made for consideration but had been fraudulently obtained from the answering Defendant by Defendant No. 2, and that the Plaintiff was not a bond fide holder of the note for value.

2. The first Court found for the Plaintiff and gave him a decree. In appeal, the lower Appellate Court, while considering that "Kedar's impeachment of the note as one that he is not bound to meet is absurd," has reversed that decree and dismissed the suit, holding that the Plaintiff is only a benamidar for Bhabani Churn Dutt, and is not entitled to maintain this suit.

3. In second appeal, it is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant, that the lower Appellate Court is wrong in holding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to maintain this suit, whereas, even upon the facts found, it ought to have held that the Plaintiff, as the holder of the note within the meaning of sec. 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was the person entitled to sue upon it.

4. On the other hand, it is argued for the principal Defendant-Respondent, that the Plaintiff was not a holder of the note within the meaning of the law; that even if a benamidar could be a holder, the Plaintiff, who, according to the finding of the lower Appellate Court, never had the note delivered to him, could not claim to be a holder of it, the endorsement in his name not having been completed by delivery; and that the Plaintiff having sued as a bond fide holder for value, could not, when that case failed, succeed as a mere holder of the note.

5. After considering the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the arguments on both sides, we are of opinion that the Appellant is entitled to succeed.

6. If a benamidar is a holder of a note within the meaning of the law, the fact of the Plaintiff having made an untrue allegation in the plaint that he was a holder for value, cannot stand in his way. Nor do we think that there is any clear finding in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court that there was no delivery of the note by Bhabani Churn Dutt to Lalit Mohun Seal and by Lalit Mohun Seal to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the fact of the note having been filed in the suit of Lalit Mohun Seal by him, and in the present suit by the Plaintiff, goes to show that the note had been delivered to the successive endorsees. The question for decision, therefore, reduces itself to this, namely, whether the Plaintiff to whom the promissory note was endorsed as the lower Appellate Court has found, without consideration and for the purpose of enabling him to sue as benamidar for the real owner of the note, can, as such, sue on it.

7. Sec. 50 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that the endorsement of a negotiable instrument followed by delivery transfers to the endorsee the property therein with the right of further negotiation. Sec. 15 defines endorsement as being the signing of a negotiable instrument by the maker or holder otherwise than as maker, for the purpose of ne