Present: Dalton J. and Jayewardene A.J.

UMMA   SALOOMAR   v.   HASSIM.

21-D. C. Colombo, 22,866.

    Promissory   note-Endorsement   in blank-Negotiation   by   delivery- Holder for value.

An endorsement in blank makes a note payable to bearer.

Such a note is negotiated by delivery and when value has been given for it, the holder is a holder for value against all parties except the person from whom he receives it.

The compromise of a claim may be a good consideration for a promissory note.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo.  The plaintiff sued the defendant on a promissory note for Rs. 5,000 made by the defendant in favour of one S. L. Naina Marikar Hadjiar and endorsed and delivered by the latter to her. The defendant denied that Naina Marikar had endorsed and delivered the note to the plaintiff for valuable consideration or that the plaintiff was the lawful holder thereof. The defendant further pleaded that he granted the note to Naina Marikar to be held by him as part security for the payment to a brother of the defendant, one Abdul Raheem, of a sum of Rs. 15,000, in con­sideration of the said Raheem having consented to withdraw his 1 (1916) 1 Ch. 213.

opposition to an award made in respect of the distribution of the estate of their father.    He stated that the notes were not meant      
to be endorsed and that the liability on it had been discharged to the knowledge of the plaintiff, who was the wife of Raheem. The learned District Judge gave judgment for the plaintiff.

H. V. Perera, for defendant, appellant. B. F. de Silva, for plaintiff, respondent.

July 20, 1928.   JayewardEne A.J.-

The plaintiff sued the defendant on a promissory note for Rs. 5,000 made by the defendant on March 11, 1921, in favour of one S. L. Naina Marikar Hadjiar. The plaintiff alleged that Naina Marikar endorsed and delivered the note to the plaintiff for valuable consideration and that the plaintiff was now the lawful holder thereof. The defendant denied that Naina Marikar had endorsed and delivered the note to the plaintiff for valuable consideration or that the plaintiff was the lawful holder. The defendant further stated in the third paragraph of his answer that he granted the promissory note to Naina Marikar on March 21, 1921, and on the same date the defendant's two brothers Isadeen Hadjiar and Haniffa also granted each a promissory note for Rs. 5,000, to the said Naina Marikar, to be held by him as security for the payment by the makers to another brother of the defendant, one A. L. M. Abdul Raheem, of a sum of Rs. 15,000, in addition to-the amount payable to the said Abdul Raheem under the award made on or about November 10, 1919, by Naina Marikar in respect of the distribution of the estate of one Alim among his heirs, in consideration of the said Raheem having consented to withdraw his opposition to the said award, and that the said notes were not to be negotiated or endorsed over. The defendant alleged that he and his two brothers had fully paid and discharged their liability to Raheem in the said sum of Rs. 15,000, and that he was still indebted to them. He further stated that the plaintiff is the wife of Raheem and was aware of these facts and that she was suing for and on behalf of her husband. After trial the District Judge entered judgment for the plaintiff as prayed for, and the defendant appeals.

Alim, the father of the defendant and Raheem, died in December 1917, and a last will dated October 22, 1917, was brought to Court, by defendant and Isadeen. The District Judge held against the will and there was an appeal, but the order was affirmed. The defendant appealed to the Privy Council but the parties agreed to refer the matter to the arbitration of Naina Marikar, He made bis award on November 20, 1919, which was accepted by Raheem

himself.   The award was brought to Court in a special case, but the District Judge h