COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals have been filed by the plaintiff, who was unsuccessful before the Courts below. The appellant/plaintiff filed both the appeals to recover the amount due on the suit promissory notes each for Rs.4,000 by the respondent in these appeals, executed in favour of the assignor Sellappa Gounder, which have been made over to the appellant in these appeals. Both the suits have been resisted mainly on the ground that both the suit promissory notes are only to the extent of Rs.2,000.

2. Considering the evidence adduced on both sides namely plaintiff and defendant, the First Appellate Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff is not a bona fide holder in due course. The plaintiff has filed both the second appeals.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission in both the appeals:

(i) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the appellant is not a bona fide holder in due course?

(ii) Whether the provisions of Sec.59 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have to be invoked? The learned counsel mainly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document