JUDGMENT

B.B. Ghose, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit brought against the defendant by the firm in the name and style of Budh Nath Peari Lal Das for recovery of Rs. 21,562 2-0 alleged to have been lent to the defendant for which a promissory note was given by the defendant in favour of Pyari Lal Pas, dated 21st January 1921. The defendant raised various pleas in his defence, but the question with which we are mainly concerned in this appeal is whether the suit has been properly brought by the plaintiff firm or, in other words, whether the plaintiff has the right to sue for the debt. Other defences were raised in the Court below, but' Sir Provash, appearing for the defendant who is the appellant before us, has candidly stated to us that, upon the materials on the record, it would be difficult for him to attack the judgment of the Subordinate Judge on the other facts found by him against the defendant. The Subordinate Judge made a decree in favour of the plaintiff mainly upon this ground:

The Negotiable Instruments Act nowhere lays down that the real owner of the money lent to a per on on a primissory note cannot sue its maker and get any money from him if his name be disclosed to