The place of payment must be specified in the body of the instrument itself and evidence aliunde is not admissible to show the knowledge of the payee. Presentment is unnecessary when the maker repudiates his obligation.

RAMAMURTI, J. : The defendant in the suit O. S. 259 of 1956, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant before us. The said suit was filed by the respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 6600 as assignee of two bundles, Exts. A-1 and A-2, (which are now admitted to be promissory notes), executed by the appellant for Rs. 4000 and Rs. 1000 on 6-2-1952 in favour of one Rukmaniammal. Of the several pleas raised by the defendant the two pleas that were pressed before us are : (1) the amounts mentioned in the hundies are payable at a specified place. Madras, and us there was no presentment of the promissory notes by the defendant for payment, the plaintiff has no right to maintain the suit; (2) the promissory notes were not supported by consideration, and that the defendant signed two blank, hundi forms and left the same with one T.S. Shanmugham, the husband of Rukmaniammal aforesaid, with a view to enable Shanmugham to raise money thereon, that the defendant's signature was obtained only by way of additional security and that the defendant did not have the benefit of the borrowing.

2. The learned City Civil Judge held that the assignment of the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff was only for purposes of collection, and that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder in due course. On the merits he held that the plea of the defendant that he signed blank hundies was a false one, that the promissory notes were fully supported by consideration, and Unit sum of Rs. 5000 was paid to the defendant when he executed the hundies. He, however, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that there was no presentment of the promissory notes as required by S. 69 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But on appeal by the plaintiff. Ramakrishnan, J. came In a contrary conclusion and held that S. 69 requiring presentment of a promissory note would not apply to the instant case as the place of payment specified is a big city, Madras, and not a specified address in the city of Madras. On the merits he agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the promissory notes were fully supported by consideration, that Rs. 5000 was actually advanced as a loan to the defendant, and that his defence that he signed blank hundies merely with a view to accommodate Shanmugham, aforesaid, was totally false. In this view ho decreed the suit as prayed for.

3. On the question of consideration we have no hesitation whatsoever in holding that there is absolutely no substance in the plea raised by the defendant. The evidence adduced in the case taken along with the relationship between the parties and the probabilities of the case fully justify this finding. This is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the entire oral and documentary evidence with a view to make out that the plaintiff's assignor, Rukmaniammal, had no means to advance the loans in question, and that the promissory notes were executed by the defendant merely with a view to accommodate Shanmugham. We are unable to agree and we find that on this portion of the case the defence is worthless. The evidence amply proves that Rukmaniammal could have easily commanded this sum of Rs. 5000 for advancing the loan, that her husband Shanmugham is admittedly a right person having properties over the value of Rs. 3 lakhs, and that there was no question of this Shanmugham requiring the assistance of the defendant to enable the former to borrow money on the additional security of the defendant It is unnecessary to advert in detail to the numerous circumstances and features of the case referred to in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment of the trial court, all of which lead to the clear conclusion that the promissory notes wore amply supported by consideration. We carefully scrutinised the promissory notes ourselves and we have doubt in our minds that the defendant's name as the maker of the hundi or promissory note was written by the defendant himself in the h