Judgment :- 1. The revision arises from a Small Cause Suit. Defendants are the revision petitioners and they have come to this Court aggrieved by the judgment and decree in the suit. The respondent plaintiff had filed the suit before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode as Small Cause Suit No. 23 of 1975 for realisation of a sum of Rs 832.43 based of a promissory note executed to the Uma Investments (Private) Limited, which had endorsed the pronote to the plaintiff. The defendants had executed the pronote for a sum of Rs. 1,900/-. When the Uma Investments (Private) Limited endorsed the promissory note to the plaintiff only a sum of Rs. 832.43 was payable by the defendants towards the promissory note and the endorsement was for that amount Some amounts had been earlier paid by the first defendant to the kuries which have been conducted by the Uma Investments (Private) Limited. Defendants 2 and 3 were sureties for the amounts due from the first defendant as per the promissory note. 2. The defendants' contention in the suit was that the suit was bad for non joinder of parties. Uma Investments (Private) Limited was a necessary party to the suit. According to them, after the execution of the pronote for Rs. 1.900/-in favour of the company, a sum of Rs. 750/-was paid. No further amount was paid because the company failed to conduct the kury and as such the first defendant was entitled to have the full dividend. It is also the first defendant's case that he had subscribed Rs. 650/-towards kury Nos. 26 and 27 including the allowable dividend. According to him in the matter of adjustment of the amount due as per the promissory note instead of giving credit to the whole amount of Rs. 650/-only a sum of Rs. 317.57, which was the actual amount paid excluding the dividend, has only been given credit. The defendants point out that regular subscription towards the kuries were not made as the stake holder was in trouble and he was not conducting kuries properly. In the plaint there was an allegation that the defendants had paid Rs. 25/-subsequent to the endorsement of the promissory note to the plaintiff. This payment was denied by the defendants. The defendants point out that regular subscription towards the kuries were not made as the stake holder was in trouble and he was not conducting kuries properly. In the plaint there was an allegation that the defendants had paid Rs. 25/-subsequent to the endorsement of the promissory note to the plaintiff. This payment was denied by the defendants. According to them, they had no notice that Uma Investments (Private) Limited had endorsed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and they knew about this only when the plaintiff sent the registered notice to them. 3. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. The contentions of the defendants were not accepted by the court below. The court below held that the first defendant was not entitled to get credit for the dividends already credited towards his account in chit Nos. 26 and 27. The court below also found that the defendants were not entitled to any adjustment of dividend as contended in their written statement. On that basis it was further held that the correct amount due to the plaintiff is as claimed in the plaint and that the defendants are not entitled to get any amount in this suit. The court below was also of the view that Uma Investments (Private) Limited was not a necessary party to the suit. 4. Sri V. P. Mohankumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, challenges the decision of the court below. According to him, the court below ought to have held that the first defendant was entitled for the dividends already credited towards kury Nos. 26 and 27. It is also his case that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties as Uma Investments (Private) Limited, in favour of whom the first defendant executed the pronote had not been impleaded as a party. Another contention that was put forward was that the respondent-plaintiff had no manner of right to sue the petitioners. It is urged that the court below failed to note that the petitioners had no knowledge that the promissory note in question was endorsed to the plaintiff respondent. Another contention that was put forward was that the respondent-plaintiff had no manner of right to sue the petitioners. It is urged that the court below failed to note that the petitioners had no knowledge that the promissory note in question was endorsed to the plaintiff respondent. Another point that is placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the court below should have held that Uma Investments (Private) Limited is in liquidation and therefore the suit could not have been proceeded with in view of Ss.442 and 446 of the Companies Act. 5. I am afraid, the petitioners' contentions have no force as such in view of the relevant provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act. Under S.32 of the said Act, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the maker of a promissory note and the acceptor before maturity of a bill of exchange are bound to pay the amount thereof at maturity according to the apparent tenor of the note or acceptance respectively, and the acceptor of a bill of exchange at or after maturity is bound to pay the amount thereof to the holder on demand and in default of such payment as aforesaid, such maker or acceptor is bound to compensate any party to the note or bill for any loss or damage sustained by him and caused by such default. The maker of a promissory note incurs personally the same obligation and stands in the same position as the acceptor of a bill of exchange. His liability is absolute unlike that of a drawer of a bill who undertakes only a conditional liability to pay if the acceptor or drawee does not. He undertakes to pay the money stated in the note at its maturity to the payee or other person entitled to receive the same according to the tenor thereof. His liability is absolute unlike that of a drawer of a bill who undertakes only a conditional liability to pay if the acceptor or drawee does not. He undertakes to pay the money stated in the note at its maturity to the payee or other person entitled to receive the same according to the tenor thereof. The moment it is admitted that the maker of a note or acceptor of a bill, made or accepted it, the onus is upon him to get rid of his liability, unless the person suing on the bill or note, is charged with fraud or some prima facie case is made out against him, for the person who signs a bill or note is presumed to be liable for the whole amount appearing on the face of the document A person who has signed a promissory note as principal is not entitled to prove by oral evidence that it was intended that he was to be liable as surety only and when a note contains an unconditional undertaking to pay, evidence of an oral agreement to vary it in effect is not admissible. By the use of the words "apparent tenor", the section makes it clear that payment, in order to be a valid payment, must be made to the person whose name appears on the face of the bill or note as entitled to demand payment. 6. I may also take into account S.36 of the Act which states that every prior party to a negotiable instrument is liable thereon to a holder in due course until the instrument is duly satisfied. It has been held that it is not open to the maker of a note payable on demand to plead as against the holder in due course that he paid the money in full to the payee before the date of the indorsement, as the payment pleaded cannot be one made in due course; for, he cannot be said to have acted in good faith and without negligence when he failed to secure the return of the note by the alleged payment of the amount due under the note, and consequently, the maker is not discharged from liability under S.82. (See in this connection the decision reported in Srinivasa v. Kannu-goundar AIR. 1966 Madras 176). 7. In Venkanna v. Subbayya AIR. (1933 Madras 300) a different view was taken. (See in this connection the decision reported in Srinivasa v. Kannu-goundar AIR. 1966 Madras 176). 7. In Venkanna v. Subbayya AIR. (1933 Madras 300) a different view was taken. There, the facts as summarised in Bhashyam and Adiga on the Negotiable Instruments Act read thus: A promissory note was executed by A in favour of B but the note came into the possession of his wife and her nephew and they refused to give it up to B; in the result, B asked A to give him a fresh promissory note, which A did. The new promissory note was subsequently negotiated by B. Eventually, A paid the amount due on the promissory note to the indorsee. After B's death his wife negotiated the original promissory note and its indorsee called upon A for payment. The defendant A denied liability under the circumstances and his defence was upheld by the Court, the reason being that as the widow was all along aware of what had happened, the original note in her hands was a mere "waste paper" and was also long overdue and her indorsement would confer no right at all. Further, the note on payment at maturity had ceased to be a negotiable paper under S.60 of the Act. This case was considered by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Gopalan v. Lakshminarasamma (AIR 1940 Madras 631). The learned judges were of the opinion that Venkanna's case was wrongly decided and could not be allowed to stand. They referred to S.81 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which provides that any person liable to pay, and called upon by the holder thereof to pay, the amount due on a promissory note is before payment entitled to have it shown and is on payment entitled to have it delivered up to him or if the instrument is lost or cannot be produced to be indemnified against any further claim thereon against biro. It follows therefore a person who pays a promissory note without insisting on its return to him or without obtaining a note therefore, acts at his own risk and applying the principle i. e., that wherever one of two innocent persons must suffer by the acts of a third, he who has enabled the third person to occasion the loss, must sustain it, it was held that the maker was liable. 8. 8. I may also refer to a case of the English Court of Appeal in Glass-cock v.Balls (1890 (24) Law Reports Page 13). The facts of that case were as follows: The plaintiff as indorsee sued the defendant as maker of a promissory note. The defendant had on October 11,1882, given to one Wayman a promissory note payable to his order on demand for the sum of 289E, being the note sued upon, as security for a debt. Subsequently, the defendant being then indebted to Wayman in the sum of 641 £, as security for part of which Wayman held the note, the latter required further security; and the defendant executed a mortgage to him of certain property to secure the total debt, with a covenant for payment of the mortgage debt. A memorandum was made at the same time to the effect that the mortgage was to be an extra security for the amount secured by the promissory note. The creditor transferred the mortgage to another person, receiving on such transfer from the transferee a sum equal to the amount of debt. He subsequently endorsed the promissory note, which remained in his hands, to the plaintiff for value, the plaintiff having no knowledge of the circumstances. The Court of Appeal consisting of Lord Esher, M. R., Lindley L. J. and Lopes, L. J. held that the note, not having been paid or returned to the maker, was still current at the time of the indorsement, and the plaintiff as a bona fide indorsee for value was entitled to recover upon it. Lord Esher, M. R. said that if a negotiable instrument remains current, even though it has been paid, there is nothing to prevent a person to whom it has been indorsed for value without knowledge that it has been paid from suing. Lindley, L. J. said: "It is a mistake to speak of the transfer of the mortgage as a realisation of that security. Realisation would be by foreclosure or sale. Lindley, L. J. said: "It is a mistake to speak of the transfer of the mortgage as a realisation of that security. Realisation would be by foreclosure or sale. It is quite true that, as between the defendant and the payee of the note, after the transfer of the mortgage, in equity the right of the payee to sue on the note for his own benefit ceased, because he had parted with all his interest and could only hold the note as trustee for the mortgagor or for the transferee as the case might be, and the payee therefore could be restrained by injunction from suing on the note, unless he were entitled to sue as trustee for the transferee of the mortgage, which would depend upon the agreement between the parties That would be the equitable right of the defendant as against the payee. But, when the note gets into the hands of a bona fide indorsee for value without notice of the facts, there can be no such equity as against him." 9. Uma Investments (Private) Limited may be a proper party to the suit; but not a necessary party and therefore, non-impleading of the said company will not make the suit in any way bad. However, the decree in the suit will not prevent the defendants from taking such action as they may have against the Uma Investments (Private) Limited in appropriate proceedings. This Civil Revision Petition is. therefore, dismissed with costs. Dismissed.