1961 Present : Sinnetamby, J., and L. B. de Silva, J.

R. S. THAMBIRAJAH, Appellant, and T. MAHESWARI,
Respondent

S. C. 394-D. O. colombo, 21633/8

Promissory note-Action instituted by indorsee against maker-Issue raised as to fact of 1ndorsement--Burden of proof-No presumption in favour of valid or genuine indorsement--Bills of Exchange Ordinance, ss. 2, 21 (2), 30 (2), 31 (2)Evidence Ordinance, s. 101.

In an action in which the maker and the payee of a promissory note payable to order are sued by the person to whom the payee indorsed the note, if the maker raises an issue questioning whether the note was indorsed, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove affirmatively the fact of indorsement completed by delivery. In such a case the plaintiff must first prove that he is a " holder" within the meaning of that term in section 2 of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance before he can claim the benefit of the presumption created under section 30 (2) that every holder of a bill is prima facie deemed to be a holder in due course.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.

A. C. M. Uvais, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

N. K. Choksy