Present: Pereira J.

CHARLES APPU v. FERNANDO.

Promissory note-Note signed in blank given to A-Authority to fill up note for Rs. 30-Note filled up in favour of B for higher amount- Holder in due course-Negotiation.

Where a simple signature on a blank stamped paper was delivered by A to B, and the same was converted by B into a promissory note in favour of C. held that it was competent to C to enforce the note, as if the paper had been filled up within a reasonable time and strictly in accordance with the authority given. The word " negotiation " when used with reference to a bill of exchange or promissory note includes the original operation of transferring the bill or note to the payee.

In the case put above, if B was shown to have been guilty of fraud, it would be incumbent on C to establish the fact by evidence that he was a holder in due course.

IN this case the plaintiff-respondent, claiming to be payee of a promissory note, sued the defendant-appellant, as the maker thereof, for the recovery of Rs. 150 principal and Rs. 84 interest at 96 per cent, per annum.

The defendant filed the following answer: -

3.