1938 Present: Poyser and de Kretser JJ.
 
KANDIAH v. SOLOMONS et al.
 
125-D. C. Jaffna, 10,886.

Promissory note-Instrument in form of pro-note-Agreement annexed-Action by endorsee-Bills of Exchange Ordinance, No. 25 of 1927, s. 84 (1).
 
Where the plaintiff as endorsee sued on an instrument, which was in the form of a promissory note but which contained the following words in addition : ?Whereas this amount has been taken out on account of cheetu and whereas deposit has been made for 37 months at the rate of Rs. 25 once in a month, the amount will be paid off. This cheetu is in the name of the first named, and the second and third named are sureties?,-

Held, that the document was not a promissory note.

THIS was an action brought by the plaintiff as the endorsee of an alleged promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of one Sivaguru and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff. The learned District Judge held that the promissory note was not negotiable, and dismissed the plaintiff's action.
 
N. Nadarajah (with him H. W. Thambiah), for plaintiff, appellant. -The document complies with all the requirements of section 84 of