An heir of a deceased holder can bring a suit on the basis of a promissory note to recover the amount due thereon to the deceased holder by reason of the fact that he succeeds to the estate of the deceased holder by inheritance.

D. K. MAHAJAN, J. : This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench for decision in view of my order of reference dated 31st October, 1961. I referred the case to a larger Bench in view of the conflict of opinion prevailing on the principal question that really falls for determination, namely, whether their of a person in whose favour a promissory note has been executed can file a suit on the basis of a pronote. The other question that has been pointedly indicated in my reference order related to the capacity of one of the joint heirs to give a valid discharge of the debt. The answer to this question further depends on the question whether one of the two heirs can give up his rights to the pronote in question in favour of the other.

2. In order to appreciate the entire controvert it will be proper to state the facts of this case in detail Dwarka Dass grandfather of Lok Nath plaintiff had leased out some property (two shops) to Padam Prashad on an annual rental of Rs. 600/-. This property had been mortgaged by Padam Parshed with possession to Dwarka Dass. A sum of Rs. 1200/- was due on account of the lease money. Rs. 400/- were taken in rash by Padam Parshad from Dwarka Dass and on 8th July, 1952, a pronote for Rs. 1600/- was executed by Padam Parshad in favour of Dwarka Dass. The rate of interest agreed to in the pronote was Re. 1.00% per mensem Dwarka Dass died leaving behind Tare Wati his widow and Lok Nath his grandson.

3. The present suit was filed by Lok Nath for recovery of Rs. 2164/- on account of principal and interest due on the basis of the pronote dated 8th July, 1952, already referred to. Plaintiff Lok Nath alleged that he was the sole heir and legal representative of Dwarka Dass and was therefore, entitled to recover the suit amount from Padam Parshad. At the time when the suit was filed Tara Wati was not impleaded as a party. On the objection taken by defendant Padam Parshad. Tara Wati was impleaded by order of the Court dated 15th December, 1955. It has been maintained by the plaintiff that Tara Wati had no right, title or interest to the amount in question and that she had given up her right, if any, to this amount by reason of the compromise Exhibit P. 1 dated 22nd March, 1955. Tara Wati has claimed in the written statement filed by her that she is entitled to half the suit amount and that the decree be passed in her favour and in favour of the plaintiff. Padam Parshad defendant raised a number of pleas in defence. It is not necessary to state all his pleas because the issues which are set down hereunder disclose the nature of the same -

"(1) Whether the pronote in suit was without consideration except to the admitted amount of Rs. 900/- ?

(2) Whether the stipulated interest was penal or amounted to compound interest as alleged in the written statement ? If so, to what reduction is the defendant entitled to ?

(3) Whether the plaintiff could not bring the present suit without getting a money lenders license ?

(4) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to cost and interest as alleged in the written statement ?

(5) Whether defendant No. 1 has any rights in the debt in dispute ? If so, to what extent ?"

The trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 to 4 against Padam Parshad defendant Issue No. 5 was found against defendant No. 2 Mst. Tara Wati, with the result that a decree for Rs. 2164/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff with costs. Against this decision, appeal was preferred by Padam Parshad alone to the District Judge, Ambala which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge Ambala. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed this appeal. Before the learned District Judge only two matters were raised : (1) that the pronote in dispute was executed in favour of Dwarka Dass deceased named payee, and the amount due thereunder could only be paid to him or to his order. As the promissory note is not indorsed in favour of the plaintiff, therefore. the plaintiff is not competent to recover the amount du