The holder of a negotiable instrument is entitled to sue for recovery, and the maker cannot avoid liability by claiming the payee is a mere benamidar. Maker must make payment to the holder to be discharged from liability.

1. Plaintiff's suit for recovery of the amount due under Ext. A3 promissory note dated 27-9-1971, with incidental reliefs, having been decreed as prayed for, the defeated defendant has come up in appeal.

2. The substance of the plaint allegations is that the appellant-defendant had borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs 15,000/- for his contract work, executing in his own hand Ext. A3 promissory note promising to pay the amount with 6 per cent interest thereon on demand; a payment of Rs. 1,000/-made on 20-9-1974 was endorsed on the promissory note by the defendant in his own hand; no other payment was received towards the promissory amount; to the suit notice dated 7-4-1975, a true copy of which is Ext. A2, the defendant had sent Ext. Al reply dated 22-4-1975 denying his liability, and putting forward false contentions; hence the suit became necessary.

3. The defendant, in his written statement, while admitting the execution of the promissory note, denied to have received any consideration from the plaintiff or having had any dealings with him; according to him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was advanced to him by one C. L. Varghese (Dw. 2) and it was at his behest that he happened to execute a promissory note for Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. His further case is that the said C. L. Varghese (Dw. 2) was having black money and he used to do money lending business, charging interest at 36 percent, and it was to avoid the disclosure of his having amassed wealth in that way, and to avoid Income-tax that he conceived the idea of making him execute the promissory note is favour of the plaintiff, instead of getting it executed in his own name. He also pleaded that the promissory

note stood discharged by his having made the payments due thereunder to the said C. L. Varghese (Dw. 2).

4. On the pleadings the trial court framed six issues, the most relevant of them, for purpose of this appeal being additional issue Nos. 5 and 6 which read as follows:

"(5) Whether the suit promissory note is executed by the defendant to C. L Varghese as contended by him in the written statements? If so such a plea is available to the defendant?

(6) Whether the suit claim is discharged by the defendant as contended by him?"

The finding by the trial court under additional issue No. 5 is that the plaintiff had executed Ext A-3 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff; and the finding under additional issue No 6 was that it was to be deleted as it did not really arise as the defendant had no case that he had made any payment to the plaintiff in discharge of the liability under Ext. A-3 promissory note.

5. The plaintiff was examined as pw.1.On his side Exts. A-1 to A-3, to which a short reference has already been made, were also proved and marked. In his oral evidence pw.1 spoke about the execution of the promissory note by the defendant in his own hand; the consideration paid by him, and the source of income himself (who was the Manager of the South Indian Trading Syndicate Private Limited) and his wife (who was a teacher) had. He also deposed that he had no dealings with the said C. L. Varghese (Dw.2) whom he knew only in his (Dw.2's) capacity as one of the Directors of the said South Indian Trading Syndicate Private Limited; and that it was absolutely false to say that the promissory note was executed in his name on behalf of the said C L. Varghese (Dw. 2).

6. The defendant was examined as Dw. 1. Dw. 2 who is done other than the said C. L. Varghese turned hostile. Dw. 3, one Govindan Nair, is stated to have been a teacher, who was working in the school where the plaintiff's wife was also a teacher.

7. On the facts surrounding the execution of the promissory note the evidence of Dws. 2 and 3 does not advance the case of the defendant much. Dw. 2, as already noticed, turned hostile to the defendant, and he categorically denied his having advanced the money to the defendant or the defendant having been asked to execute the promissory note in the name