JUDGMENT M. Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The 2nd defendant firm, of which the 3rd defendant is the managing partner, had an overdraft account with the plaintiff Bank. As security for the balance due on this account the 3rd defendant endorsed a promissory note, Ext. E, for Rs. 4,400/-, executed in 1946 by the 1st defendant in favour of the second defendant firm. After that, plaintiff handed over the promissory note to the 3rd defendant for collection. A portion of the amount was collected ; and for the balance, Rs. 2,115-6-6 a renewed promissory note Ext. F was taken on 17-6-1949 in the name of the 2nd defendant. On 2-6-1950 a sum of Rs. 508-6-0 remained due on the latter promissory note. As per Exts. B and C, the 2nd defendant firm had assigned its interests in the abovesaid promissory notes to the plaintiff Bank towards discharge of its dues to the Bank. It is by virtue of that title that the plaintiff has instituted this suit for realisation of Rs. 508-6-0 remaining due under Ext. F from the 1st defendant, impleading the firm and its managing partner also as parties to the suit. The 1st defendant challenged the plaintiff's competency to sue. The Munsiff overruled the objection and decreed the suit and that was affirmed by the District Judge, on appeal. This Second Appeal is by the 1st defendant challenging the plaintiff's competency without an endorsement in its favour to sue on the promissory note. 2. Counsel for the 1st defendant relied on the rulings in Harkishore Barua v. Gura Mia Chowdhry (AIR 1931 Calcutta 387) Virappa Andandanepra Manvi v. Mahadevappa Basappa Katti (AIR 1934 Bombay 356) and Bacha Prasad v. Janki Rai (AIR 1957 Patna 380 F. B.) in which a strict view was taken as to the competency of a person, who is other than the payee or the endorsee, to institute a suit on a negotiable instrument. These rulings construed S.8 and 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to make it incompetent for any person other than the holder of a promissory note to sue on the same. 3. These rulings construed S.8 and 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to make it incompetent for any person other than the holder of a promissory note to sue on the same. 3. S.8 reads : "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." This section only defines who is the holder of promissory note. Incidentally it has also referred to what a holder is entitled to. It does not purport to lay down a rule as to who alone can institute a suit on a promissory note. The mention of a right to sue on a negotiable instrument being in the holder of a promissory note does not indicate that no other person can lay a claim thereon in court. 4. S.78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides; "Subject to the provisions of S.82 Clause (c) payment of the amount due on a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque must, in order to discharge the maker or accept or be made to the holder of the instrument." In my humble view, this section deals with transactions inter parties. It is only by making payment to the holder of a negotiable instrument can the obligor claim to have discharged the promissory note. He cannot deny his liability to the holder of the instrument and set up the title of a stranger to the instrument as the person entitled to its consideration. S.78 embodies this principle. It does not however, limit the jurisdiction of a civil court to try claims on a promissory note. 5. When a person makes a claim against the holder of a promissory note in a suit to which the holder is made a party he is not denying the proprietary interest of the holder in the note. On the other hand it is conceding such interest in the holder, and then claiming by virture of a title binding on the holder that the plaintiff be allowed to collect the amount from the maker of the promissory note. Understood in this light, the decree on a claim made against the holder of a promissory note is not a negation of the provisions of S.78 at all. Understood in this light, the decree on a claim made against the holder of a promissory note is not a negation of the provisions of S.78 at all. The reason adopted in the rulings cited above is that a promissory note being negotiable, payment to a person other than the holder will not save the maker from his liability to the holder for the time being. After discharge has been made in compliance with the directions of a court embodied in a decree binding on the holder of the promissory note the obligor will not have to make another payment to the holder. S.78 does not lend support to any contrary view. The instrument itself, its holder and maker are all before court. All pursuit of the instrument will effectively cease with the decree of the court and the maker need not apprehend any further risk on account of the instrument put in suit. The reason for the ruling thus fails when the holder himself is a party to the suit. 6. I would therefore hold that, when the holder of a negotiable instrument has been made a party to the suit, it is competent for any person to claim the property in the instrument in a suit. In the present suit, the holder firm is made party to the suit; and further its managing partner has come to court and sworn in full support of the plaintiff's claim. The maintainability of the suit has therefore to be found in favour of the plaintiff. I accept the finding of the courts below in that respect. It then follows that the second appeal has no force and has to be dismissed. Costs follow the event. This judgment will not prejudice the rights, if any, of the 1st defendant to the benefits of Act 31 of 1958.