Judgment.- The petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, who restricted the scope of the decree to be passed against the first defendant to the extent of only Rs.260 as against the claim of the petitioner in the sum of Rs.429-8-0, which was the amount due on a promissory note. In the first instance, the learned District Munsif held that the promissory note was not supported by consideration and, therefore, he dismissed the suit as against the first defendant, and gave a decree against the second defendant only, the assignor of the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the promissory note was supported by consideration; but while giving a decree against the first defendant, he found that only Rs.260 had been paid by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover only that amount under the suit promissory note. He believed the evidence of D.W.‘s 3 and 4 in this matter, and then found that though the plaintiff stated in his chief examination that he had paid Rs.400 for the assignment of the promissory note in his favour, it was not proved that he had paid that amount, but that what was proved was only the payment of Rs.60 plus a promissory note for Rs.200. On that basis, he decreed the suit only to the extent of Rs.260 against the first defendant. The petitioner has preferred this C.R.P. against that order of the learned Subordinate Judge, and claims that in addition to the Rs.260 decreed against the first defendant, the plaintiff-petitioner will be entitled also to a further sum of Rs.140 which is the consideration for the original promissory note, which stood assigned in his favour. On a construction of sections 43, 50 and 117 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it appears to me that the plaintiff, who is the endorsee of the promissory note executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, should be entitled to the amount under the promissory note and not the amount which he might have been proved to have actually paid for the endorsement or assignment of the promissory note in his favour by the second defendant. In assignments of promissory notes, it is not always the case that the promissory notes are endorsed for the full value of the promissory notes. In assignments of promissory notes, it is not always the case that the promissory notes are endorsed for the full value of the promissory notes. There must be certain margin left for purposes of meeting any deficiencies or any expenses that might be incurred in the matter of the recovery of the dues under the promissory notes. The sections referred to above clearly lay down that the endorsement on any promissory note would entitle the endorsee to recover what is due under the promissory note and not the actual amount that the endorsee might have paid by way of consideration to the endorser. In these circumstances, the decree of the Subordinate Judge to the extent of only Rs.260 as against the first defendant, the executant of the promissory note, cannot be sustained. The plaintiff, therefore, would be entitled to the full amount due under the promissory note and not to any smaller amount. Whatever amount is due on the promissory note plus the interest accrued therein would be the decree amount which the plaintiff would be entitled to as the endorsee of the promissory note. The decree of the learned Subordinate Judge will have to be modified to the extent to which the learned Subordinate Judge has disallowed the claim of the plaintiff under the promissory note. In the result, there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff petitioner for the full amount under the promissory note, inclusive of interest, against the first defendant, who is the executant of the promissory note. As regards the second defendant, the petitioner does not claim any relief-He is satisfied with a decree for the full amount due under the promissory note endorsed in his favour from the first defendant. He has made the second defendant a party to the proceedings in the C.R.P. as he is a necessary party, having been not merely the promisee of the promissory note but also the endorser in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, since he is. a necessary party it cannot be argued by Mr. Vaidyanatha Ayyar that he has been unnecessarily brought to this Court. If the second defendant had not been made a party to this C.R.P., to that extent the C.R.P. would have been defective. So, there was every justification for the petitioner to make the second defendant also a party to this petition. Vaidyanatha Ayyar that he has been unnecessarily brought to this Court. If the second defendant had not been made a party to this C.R.P., to that extent the C.R.P. would have been defective. So, there was every justification for the petitioner to make the second defendant also a party to this petition. The question will then arise as to whether in these circumstances Mr. Vaidyanatha Ayyar will be entitled to costs. In so far as the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the second defendant in this C.R.P., I do not think I shall be justified in awarding costs to the second defendant. The petition is, therefore, allowed as against the first defendant with full costs in all the three Courts. It may be noted that the first defendant has not appeared in this Court, nor has he been represented by any counsel. He has chosen to be ex parte. K.C. ----- Petition allowed.