Plaintiff has been declared bona fide holder in due course.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.9,000 from Thiru. Ramaraj 2.5.1979 and executed a promissory note in favour of the said Ramaraj agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum. Again on 7.5.1979, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 from the said Ramaraj for his business and agricultural expenses and executed another promissory note in his favour on the same date agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The defendant did not pay any amount towards the said two promissory notes. So, the said Ramaraj assigned the two promissory notes on 9.12.1980 in favour of the plaintiff receiving the consideration of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 11,000 respectively. So, the plaintiff is the bona fide assignee of the said two promissory notes for valuable consideration. The endorsement for the assignment of the said promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff were made on the back of the promissory notes by the said Ramaraj on 9.12.1980. The plaintiff and the original promisee Ramaraj informed the defendant about the assignments and required him to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff. Though the defendant promised to pay the amounts due within a short time, he was evading to do so. On 7.5.1979, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000 from one Guruva Reddiar and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The defendant did not pay that amount. Guruva Reddiar assigned the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the consideration of Rs.5,500. The plaintiff is the bona fide assignee for valuable consideration. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay that amount. Hence, the suit is filed for recovery of Rs.32,255 with subsequent interest at 6 per cent per annum on Rs.24,000.

3. The defendant filed written statement admitting the borrowals under the two promissory notes, but, he pleaded discharge of the promissory notes. The defendant spent a sum of Rs.5,200 for the college education of the daughter of Ramaraj Reddiar and he has also spent a sum of Rs.2,000 for the jewels of the daughter of Ramaraj Reddiar. He was also regularly paying interest and the suit pro-notes have been completely discharged. No amount was received from Guruva Reddiar under the third pronote and that pro- note came into existence as the amount was agreed to be borrowed whenever necessity arises and there was no necessity for the defendant to receive any amount. The plaintiff is not the holder in due course. The assignor did not receive any consideration from the plaintiff, the assignee and the assignment is not supported by any consideration. The plaintiff is not entitled to any amount.

4. The trial court found that the discharge pleaded by the defendant is not true, but held that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course of Exs.A-1 and-A-2 pro-notes and hence, not entitled to realise the amounts due under the pro-notes and accordingly dismissed the suit in respect of Exs.A-1 and A-2 pro-notes and decreed the suit in respect of Ex.A-3.

5. As against that finding, the plaintiff has come forward with the present appeal.

6. So, the first appeal is confined with regard to Exs.A-1 and A-2. In this appeal, the plaintiff appellant contends that he has paid the consideration for the assignment and he is a holder in due course and the assignment is fully supported by consideration and the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts covered under Exs.A-1 and A-2.

7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the assignments Exs.A-5 and A-6 on the pro-notes Exs.A-1 and A-2 are true and valid and the plaintiff is entitled to any amount claimed.

8. The defendant borrowed Rs.9,000 on 2.5.1979 and Rs.10,000 on 7.5.1979 and executed the pronotes Exs.A-1 and A-2 agreeing to repay the amounts with interest at 12 per cent per annum. But, he did not pay the amount