Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff sued on a promissory note executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiffs claim was that the promissory note was executed in favour of the second defendant benami for herself. The trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable, and against this order of dismissal the present Revision Petition has been filed.

2. No direct authority of this Court has been quoted to me but there is an obiter remark of a Full Bench in Subba Narayana Vathiar v. Ramaswami Aiyar I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 88 : 16 M.L.J. 508 which supports the view of the learned District Munsif. That was a suit in which the payee sued the maker of the note who pleaded that the note had been executed in plaintiffs favour only benami for one K and that it had been discharged by payment to the person really interested. It was held by the Bench that evidence to this effect could not be adduced by the defendant. That case is of course different from the present which comes directly under Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judges in Subba Narayana Vathiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar I.L.R.(1906)Mad. 88 : 16 M.L.J. 508 however, pr