JUDGMENT :- The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24655 due under two promissory notes dated 25-6-1969 Ex. A-1 and 2-9-1969 Exhibit A-2. A sum of Rs. 1000 was paid towards the promissory note dated 25-6-1969 and an endorsement was made on 24-11-1969. On 7-4-1972, he executed a fresh promissory note for a sum of Rs. 18,750, which the total amount due under Exs. A-1 and A-2, with interest up till that date. On the same day, identical endorsements were made in Exs. A-1 and A-2 to the effect that by execution of the promissory note dated 7-4-1972 the amount due under the promissory note has been discharged. Subsequently, the plaintiff herein assigned the promissory note dated 7-4-1972, in favour of one Muthukaruppan Chettiar. The assignee filed O. S. 34 of 1973 for the recovery of the amount due under the note dated 7-4-1972. It appears the defendant contended in the suit that Muthukaruppan was not a bona fide holder in due course, that the suit was premature since one year thavanai was fixed for payment that, that the promissory note was an instrument payable otherwise than on demand and not a negotiabl