JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This Second Appeal has been filed by Defendant No. 1 against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court arising out of a suit based on a hand note dated 18th February 1947, which is for principal amount of Rs. 600/-. The Plaintiff claims to be the endorsee in respect of the hand note and bases his claim with interest at Rs. 73110-. The original holder of the handnote was the Overland Bank Limited, Cuttack Branch. Defendant No. 2 in the present suit. The Plaintiff has brought the suit on the basis of an endorsement of assignment in his favour dated 24th November, 1947. The Plaintiff having served a notice on Defendant No. 1 regarding the endorsement of assignment, the present suit has been brought. The notice purports to have been served on 31st May 1948. 2. The main defence, taken by Defendant No. 1, the Appellant is that the Plaintiff is not complaint to bring the suit as he cannot be taken to be a "holder in due course" of the handnote as the endorsement of assignment, which purports to have been made by the General Manager, Govinda Choudhury is without authority. 3. The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit 'white the lower appellate court has decreed the Plaintiff's suit finding that it is to be presumed under the provisions of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the Plaintiff is the holder in due course unless any fraud or offence is proved by Defendant No. 1. In my opinion, the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated in law as the learned judge has taken a wrong view of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In my opinion, the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated in law as the learned judge has taken a wrong view of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. u/s 118, "Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-x x x x x (g) that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course: Provided that where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from -any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course based upon him." Indeed the Plaintiff will be entitled to the presumption u/s 118, provided he proves that he is the holder of the negotiable instrument. 4. We shall have to refer back to the provisions of Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to see what exactly is meant by the "holder" of the negotiable instrument under the Act. Mere producing the document from the Plaintiff's custody does not make him the holder of the negotiable instrument. u/s 8, the "holder" of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque means any person entitled in his own name to the possession thereof and to receive or recover the amount due thereon from the parties thereto. It is necessary therefore in the present case to be proved by the Plaintiff that in fact he is the assignee in respect of the negotiable instrument, that is to say the person making the endorsement of assignment had authority to make such endorsement. I indeed the endorsement has been made by Govind Chowdhury, the General Manager. In my opinion, that is not sufficient to prove that he had the authority to make any endorsement. 5. I will refer in this connection to the provisions of Section 27 of the Act which say: X X X X A general authority to transact business and to receive and discharge debts does not confer upon an agent the power of accepting or endorsing bills of exchange so as to bind his principal". 5. I will refer in this connection to the provisions of Section 27 of the Act which say: X X X X A general authority to transact business and to receive and discharge debts does not confer upon an agent the power of accepting or endorsing bills of exchange so as to bind his principal". Without discussing the matter any further, I may mention it was fairly conceded by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents that it was incumbent upon the Plaintiff to have proved the authority and that the mere fact that Govinda Choudhury was the General Manager is not sufficient for the purpose of proving that the endorsement was a valid one and a competent one. But nevertheless, Mr. Patnaik appearing on behalf of the Respondents, says that the evidence on record leads to an implied authority for the General Manager to make an endorsement of this nature. There is no dispute over the position that the express authority has not been proved and I am unable to find also any substantial audience on record to lead to the conclusion of Implied authority for Govinda Choudhury to make such endorsement. 6. Reliance also has been placed upon a decision of this Court where the selfsame Plaintiff had brought a suit almost on similar ground and the disputed position was whether Govinda Choudhury had the authority to make an endorsement. On a perusal of the judgment of Panigrahi, C.J. I find that in that case what weighed with his Lordship was that the endorsement was ratified by the Board of directors by a resolution passed by them. The resolution was filed In that case. But in this case no certified copy of the resolution has been filed, and I am absolutely helpless to draw any inference that so far as the present transaction is concerned there was any such ratification by the Board of Directors. The Plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to produce the original copy of the resolution or a certified copy thereof to prove either ratification or conferring direct authority on Govinda Choudhury to make endorsement of this nature. The Plaintiff having failed to do so, he does not deserve any further Indulgence in the Case. The Plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to produce the original copy of the resolution or a certified copy thereof to prove either ratification or conferring direct authority on Govinda Choudhury to make endorsement of this nature. The Plaintiff having failed to do so, he does not deserve any further Indulgence in the Case. In this view of the matter therefore there is no doubt in my mind that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove that the endorsement was made by a person duly authorised to do so, and as such, the assignment is incompetent. The Plaintiff is bound to be non-suited on this ground. 7. I therefore order that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside, the appeal is allowed and the Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed