The defendants failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the plaintiff, as the assignee of the promissory note for value, was entitled to the full amount claimed.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the Prl. District Judge, Erode made in A.S.No.188 of 1982 on 30.4.1983.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit on a promissory note contending as follows:-

The defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 from Chennimalai Gounder and executed a promissory note in his favour on 28. 1975 promising to repay the said sum with interest to him or his order on demand Chennimalai Gounder died on 15. 1979. His wife and parents predeceased him. His daughters died issueless. Ponnuswamy Gounder is the brother of Chennimalai Gounder and Meenakshi Ammal is the sister of Chennimalai Gounder. Ponnuswamy Gounder died in 1977. Therefore Meenakshi Ammal is the only sole surviving heir of Chennimalai Gounder. She as the sole surviving heir inherited all the properties of Chennimalai Gounder inclusive of the suit mentioned debts. On 6. 1976 Meenakshi Ammal assigned the suit promissory note for valuable consideration in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff has become entitled to the suit claim. Since the defendants did not pay the amount due, the plaintiff issued a notice calling upon the defendants to repay the amount. The defendants has sent a reply contending untrue averments. The defendants are entitled to the benefits of Acts 4 of 1938, 10 of 1975 and 16 of 1976. As the defendants are agriculturists interest is claimed only at 9 per cent. Hence the suit.

.3. The defendants pleaded as follows:-

.The suit has been filed vexatiously. The suit is not maintainable. It is not true to say that the defendant actuated a promissory note, for Rs. 5,000 in favour of Chennimalai Gounder. They received only Rs. 2,500. But as per practice the defendants were compelled by Chennimalai Gounder to execute the promissory note for Rs. 5,000. Therefore the defendants accordingly executed the promissory note for Rs. 5,000. When Chennimalai Gounder was bed-ridden the defendants repaid the said sum of Rs. 2,500 with interest at 36% in the presence of witnesses present. When they demanded for the return of the promissory note they were informed that it is in the house of one Meenakshi Ammal and assured to return to them. But it was not returned. Meenakshi Ammal is not a relation or heir of Chennimalai Gounder. It is not admitted that the plaintiff obtained assignment of the suit promissory note for valuable consideration. Further the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Act 31/76 being small farmers. The defendants therefore pray that the suit be dismissed with costs.

.4. Before the II Additional District Munsiff, Erode, who conducted the trial of the suit on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff took the stand as P.W-1 and exhibits A-l to A-7 were marked. The second defendant examined himself as D.W-1 and another witness by name Kandasamy as D.W-2. No document was marked on the side of the defendants. The trial court found the plaintiffs case as having been made out and decreed the suit with costs as prayed for. The defendants aggrieved by the said decision took out the matter in appeal to the District Court, Erode and the prl. District Judge, Erode by his judgment dated 30.4.1983 in A.S.No. 188 of 1982 allowed the appeal in part holding that the promissory note is supported by consideration only to an extent of Rs. 2,500 and decreed accordingly. Hence the second appeal.

5. At the time when the appeal was admitted the following questions of law were formulated for consideration. They are as follows:-

.(1) Whether the lower appellate court has acted correctly in decreeing the suit only for a portion of the suit amount and not the full amount, in spite of the fact that the plaintiff is an endorsee of the suit promissory note and as such, he is entitled under law to realise the full amount as a holder in due course?

.(2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in presuming that that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration only partially and not f