JUDGMENT : RYVES, J. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:— Tulshi Ram made a promissory note in favour of Sagarmal Chhajjumal on 30th of August, 1908, promising to pay them on demand Rs. 500 with interest at 12 per cent, per annum for value received. 2. On the 15th of June, 1910, Sagarmal and Chajjumal sold this note to Hazari Lal, the plaintiff, by a registered sale-deed for Rs. 575. Hazari Lal demanded payment of it from Tulshi Ram on more than one occasion, and sent him a registered notice on the 29th of July, 1911, which was disregarded. He brought this suit to recover the amount due on the note on the 30th of August, 1911, from Tulshi Ram. Chajjumal and Sagarmal were made fro forma defendants. Tulshi Ram, in his written statement, stated:— “As a matter of fact the note of hand in suit was not executed on receipt of money in cash as consideration. The contesting defendant and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 entered into an agreement for purchasing and selling grain pits in the form of a badni contract. Accordingly, in compliance with the wishes of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, the note of hand in suit was executed in the beginning for their satisfaction. In the transaction relating to grain pits, a considerable amount of profit was, on the date fixed, due to the contesting defendant against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on account of the prices having risen. This gave rise to serious disputes in the market of the Hapur mandaru and several panchayats were held. Ultimately, after an amicable settlement in respect of the profits of the contesting defendant, defendant No. 3 executed a note of hand for Rs. 150 in favour of the contesting defendant, on the 13th of Bhadon Badi, Sambat 1968,” corresponding to the 22nd of August, 1911. 3. The Munsif, after hearing the evidence of both parties and examining the account books of Sagarmal Chajjumal which were produced in evidence, found that the note had been given, as it purported, for a cash loan, and that it had been sold to Hazari Lal, the plaintiff, for the consideration stated by him, and decreed the suit. 4. On appeal the learned District Judge did not disturb this latter finding. 4. On appeal the learned District Judge did not disturb this latter finding. He thought it necessary to take further evidence as to the relations between Tulshi Ram and the firm Sagarmal Chajjumal. He took a great deal of trouble in examining their books and taking further evidence which, however, seems to us to have been altogether irrelevant. The finding at which he arrived seems to us self-contradictory and contrary to the case set up by Tulshi Ram himself. 5. He says:— “I find on the first point that the pro-note was executed merely as security. On the second point I find that when accounts were ripe for settlement by the 9th October, Tulshi Ram was a winner, and when the Katik accounts were ripe for settlement, he was a winner of Rs. 166-10-3, even supposing that Chajju was not cheating him over the Bhadon settlement. 6. A third question remains for consideration and that is plaintiff position. On the 29th July, 1911, over a year after he bought the pro-note, he gave Tulshi Ram a registered notice. Tulshi Ram went to Chajjumal and got him to give him, on the 22nd August, 1911, a pro-note for Rs. 150, which settled the account, Chajju having sold the pro-note for Rs. 500 to plaintiff, could afford to do this. Tulshi Ram said in the lower court that they (Chajju and Sagarmal) could not then find the pro-note. This is a weak explanation of Tulshi Ram's failure to get back the pro-note in suit or to get a distinct reference to the fact of its satisfaction in the pro-note for Rs. 150 which he was getting. On the 30th August, 1911, the plaintiff brought the present suit. The pro-note was satisfied, as I have shown, when the grain transactions left Tulshi Ram a winner in November, 1908. The plaintiff was buying waste paper; and as paragraph 2 of the plaint suggests, at its par value.” 7. Tulshi Ram was entering into a speculation in grain with the firm of Chajjumal Sagarmal, and this firm apparently declined to do business unless they received security, as is stated in the 8th paragraph of their written statement in the beginning-for their satisfaction.” Assuming this to be the Case, this security seems to have been given not to cover one particular transaction but generally for so long as their relations continued. Does the learned District Judge mean, in the first part of his finding, that as early as the 9th of October, 1908 the amount of the bond was really repaid and that nothing was due under it? If he does, then what does he mean by saying that on the 22nd of August, 1911, Tulshi Ram got Chajjumal to give him a pro-note for Rs. 150 which settled the account. 8. But, in our opinion, it is immaterial which statement represents his real finding because, on the facts found, it seems to us that the plaintiff must succeed. Under section 37 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the maker of the promissory note is liable to Hazari Lal who is a “holder” within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. He paid consideration for the note and, we think, he can recover on it even if it was originally made by Tulshi Ram without consideration. But we think on another ground also he is entitled to recover, and that is on the principle that whenever one of two persons must suffer by the act of a third, he who has enabled that third person to occasion the loss must sustain it himself. 9. If nothing was due on the pro-note on the 9th October, 1908, Tulshi Ram should have got it back. His negligence in not getting it back enabled Sagarmal Chajjumal to sell it for a good consideration to the plaintiff, who had no notice of what had passed between Tulshi Ram and Chajjumal and Sagarmal. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the Munsif with costs.