Judgment 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.9,000 from Thiru. Ramaraj 2.5.1979 and executed a promissory note in favour of the said Ramaraj agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum. Again on 7.5.1979, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 from the said Ramaraj for his business and agricultural expenses and executed another promissory note in his favour on the same date agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The defendant did not pay any amount towards the said two promissory notes. So, the said Ramaraj assigned the two promissory notes on 9.12.1980 in favour of the plaintiff receiving the consideration of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 11,000 respectively. So, the plaintiff is the bona fide assignee of the said two promissory notes for valuable consideration. The endorsement for the assignment of the said promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff were made on the back of the promissory notes by the said Ramaraj on 9.12.1980. The plaintiff and the original promisee Ramaraj informed the defendant about the assignments and required him to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff. Though the defendant promised to pay the amounts due within a short time, he was evading to do so. On 7.5.1979, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000 from one Guruva Reddiar and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The defendant did not pay that amount. Guruva Reddiar assigned the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the consideration of Rs.5,500. The plaintiff is the bona fide assignee for valuable consideration. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not pay that amount. Hence, the suit is filed for recovery of Rs.32,255 with subsequent interest at 6 per cent per annum on Rs.24,000. 3. The defendant filed written statement admitting the borrowals under the two promissory notes, but, he pleaded discharge of the promissory notes. The defendant spent a sum of Rs.5,200 for the college education of the daughter of Ramaraj Reddiar and he has also spent a sum of Rs.2,000 for the jewels of the daughter of Ramaraj Reddiar. He was also regularly paying interest and the suit pro-notes have been completely discharged. The defendant spent a sum of Rs.5,200 for the college education of the daughter of Ramaraj Reddiar and he has also spent a sum of Rs.2,000 for the jewels of the daughter of Ramaraj Reddiar. He was also regularly paying interest and the suit pro-notes have been completely discharged. No amount was received from Guruva Reddiar under the third pronote and that pro- note came into existence as the amount was agreed to be borrowed whenever necessity arises and there was no necessity for the defendant to receive any amount. The plaintiff is not the holder in due course. The assignor did not receive any consideration from the plaintiff, the assignee and the assignment is not supported by any consideration. The plaintiff is not entitled to any amount. 4. The trial court found that the discharge pleaded by the defendant is not true, but held that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course of Exs.A-1 and-A-2 pro-notes and hence, not entitled to realise the amounts due under the pro-notes and accordingly dismissed the suit in respect of Exs.A-1 and A-2 pro-notes and decreed the suit in respect of Ex.A-3. 5. As against that finding, the plaintiff has come forward with the present appeal. 6. So, the first appeal is confined with regard to Exs.A-1 and A-2. In this appeal, the plaintiff appellant contends that he has paid the consideration for the assignment and he is a holder in due course and the assignment is fully supported by consideration and the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts covered under Exs.A-1 and A-2. 7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the assignments Exs.A-5 and A-6 on the pro-notes Exs.A-1 and A-2 are true and valid and the plaintiff is entitled to any amount claimed. 8. The defendant borrowed Rs.9,000 on 2.5.1979 and Rs.10,000 on 7.5.1979 and executed the pronotes Exs.A-1 and A-2 agreeing to repay the amounts with interest at 12 per cent per annum. But, he did not pay the amount. The assignor Ramaraj received the consideration from the plaintiff for the two pro-notes viz., Rs.10,000 and Rs. 11,000 respectively and assigned the two pro-notes under Exs.A-5 and A-6 on 9.12.1980 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants admits the execution of the pro-notes under Exs.A-1 and A-2, but pleads discharge of the same. But, he did not pay the amount. The assignor Ramaraj received the consideration from the plaintiff for the two pro-notes viz., Rs.10,000 and Rs. 11,000 respectively and assigned the two pro-notes under Exs.A-5 and A-6 on 9.12.1980 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants admits the execution of the pro-notes under Exs.A-1 and A-2, but pleads discharge of the same. He also contends that the plaintiff is not a bonafide holder in due course, With regard to the discharge pleaded by the defendant, the trial court did not accept the contention of the defendant. The plaintiff vehemently contends that only after receiving the consideration, the assignor assigned the pro-notes in his favour and he is bona fide holder in due course and is entitled to the amount claimed. 9. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has parted with the amount for Exs.A-5 and A-6 and he is a bona fide holder in due course and is entitled to the amount claimed. 10. The assignor Ramaraj who has been examined as P W.3 clearly speaks in his evidence that he assigned the pro note Exs.A-1 and A-2 in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the consideration of Rs.10,000 and Rs.11,000 respectively. He specifically states that for the marriage of his daughter, he required money and demanded the defendant to pay the amount due under the pro-notes, but, the defendant did not pay any amount at that time and so, he made the assignment of the pro-notes in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the consideration from the plaintiff. The endorsement Exs.A-5 and A-6 made by the assignor Ramaraj clearly proves that he has received the consideration and made the assignment for the amount due under the pro-notes in favour of the plaintiff stating that the assignee can collect the amount from the defendant either in person or through court. Under Exs.A-5 and A-6, the assignor directed the plaintiff to get the amount due under the pro-notes from the defendant. The evidence of Exs.A-5 and A-7 and P.W.3 proves that the plaintiff had parted with the amount and obtained the assignment and is entitled to proceed against the defendant. The plaintiff who has been examined as P.W.I speaks with regard to payment of the consideration by him towards the assignment. He also speaks with regard to passing of consideration by him to the assignor. 11. The plaintiff who has been examined as P.W.I speaks with regard to payment of the consideration by him towards the assignment. He also speaks with regard to passing of consideration by him to the assignor. 11. The defendant as D.W.1 speaks that the plaintiff has no means to pay the amounts on the assignments and in the panchayat the assignor Ramaraj has mentioned the names of the persons from whom amounts were due and the assignment in favour of the plaintiff was not mentioned there and so, the assignment is not true. The defendant relies upon Exs.B-1 and B-2. D.W.2 speaks in his evidence about Ex.B-1 and D.W.3 speaks about Ex.B-3. The trial court found that there is no reason to reject or disbelieve the evidence of D.W.3, a retired officer held in high respect in the community and Ex.B-2 itself establishes that a panchayat was convened on 13.4.1983 and P.W.3 claimed that the amount due under Ex.A-1 was actually due to him and so, the plaintiff is not a holder in due course of the instruments. 12. Ex.B-1 is dated 13.4.1983 wherein particulars of account signed by Guruva Reddiar and his son Ramaraj are mentioned. It is stated therein that the amount due from the defendant was Rs.19,000 and the court expenses was Rs.4,500 relating to Ramaraj. Ex.B-2 is an agreement entered into between Guruva Reddiar and his sons in a panchayat convened on 13.4.1983. In Ex.B-2 nothing is mentioned about the suit pro-notes. It is stated therein that as some civil and criminal cases were pending, they have to be settled as per the decision of the panchyatdars. Nothing is mentioned with regard to the suit pro-notes under Ex.B-2. Even in Ex.B-1 it is stated as the amount due from the defendant pertaining to the assignor Ramaraj. From the recital of Exs.B-1 and B-2, it cannot be concluded that there were no proper assignments in favour of the plaintiff and there was no passing of consideration by the plaintiff. P.W.3 the assignor has clearly spoken in his evidence that one muchalika was executed by the panchyatdars under Ex.B-2, but, no panchayat was convened later to pursue that matter and he also did not write anything in his own handwriting in Ex.B-1 and he has also not signed in Ex.B-1. He denies his signature in Ex.B-1. P.W.3 the assignor has clearly spoken in his evidence that one muchalika was executed by the panchyatdars under Ex.B-2, but, no panchayat was convened later to pursue that matter and he also did not write anything in his own handwriting in Ex.B-1 and he has also not signed in Ex.B-1. He denies his signature in Ex.B-1. He further states that he also did not give any list to the panchayat with regard to the amounts due to him. 13. In Exs.B-1 and B-2, the signature, of G.Ramaraj is found in Tamil whereas in the assignments Exs.A-5 and A-6, the said Ramaraj has signed in English. P.W.3 has denied his signature in Ex.B-1 The initial ‘G’ found in Exs.A-5 and A-6 is not similar to ‘G’ found in Exs.B-1 and B-2. The evidence of P.W.3 proves that he has not given any list to the panchayat and he has not given any list to the panchayat and he has also not signed in Ex.B-1. The evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 4 clearly proves that the assignor Ramaraj received the consideration from the plaintiff and made the assignments in favour of the plaintiff. The evidence of P.Ws. clearly prove that Exs.A-5 and A-6 are true and valid. 14. The defendant admits the execution of the pro-notes. The evidence of P.Ws. proves that the assignments are true and valid. This Court has held in Muthukaruppan v. Habib Mohamed Muthukaruppan v. Habib Mohamed, A.I.R. 1955 Mad. 43 that, The question whether the consideration for a negotiable instrument is adequate or not cannot be the subject matter of controversy in the suit when once it is admitted that the negotiable instrument had been executed by the defendant and there was some consideration for it. In the case of Kadarkarai Reddiar v. Arumugam Nadar Kadarkarai Reddiar v. Arumugam Nadar (1992) 2L.W. 307 this Court has held that, Sec.20 provides for two rights in respect of two different persons. One is right given to the holder of the document, the person who is in possession of the document, the document being an inchoate document and that right is the right to complete it. One is right given to the holder of the document, the person who is in possession of the document, the document being an inchoate document and that right is the right to complete it. The other right conferred is upon the holder in due course and that right is that even though the holder in due course might come into possession of a negotiable instrument which was not wholly completed by the maker, he has the same right against the maker as if the maker had himself written out the whole of the document. If the document has been completed by the person who has come into possession of it as contemplated by Sec.20. It is only where a person comes into possession of an instrument, having paid the consideration for it and being a bonafidetransferee, he can be regarded as a holder in due course within the meaning of Sec.9 of the Act and the transfer and the negotiation must be of a negotiable instrument and not the transfer of an inchoate document, which is not a negotiable instrument under the Act. The important point to be noted is that even as per the above said Sec.20, the person signing the stamped paper, shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same to any holder in due course for such amount. Under Sec.9inter alia, it is necessary for a person to be a holder in due course that he should get possession of the promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if it is payable to bearer or he must be payee or the endorsee hereof, if payable to order or to the order of payee. In the latter case also delivery of the instrument to the payee or to the endorsee is necessary, for, no contract on a negotiable instrument is complete without such delivery. But, a payee who takes an incomplete instrument cannot be said to be a holder in due course because the transfer and negotiation in such case, to the payee is not of negotiable instrument, but, only of an inchoate instrument, which is not a negotiable instrument. 15. In the present case, Exs.A-1 and A-2 pro-notes which have been assigned in favour of the plaintiff under Exs.A-5 and A-6 who was passed consideration for Exs.A-5 and A-6 and he is in possession of those documents. 15. In the present case, Exs.A-1 and A-2 pro-notes which have been assigned in favour of the plaintiff under Exs.A-5 and A-6 who was passed consideration for Exs.A-5 and A-6 and he is in possession of those documents. So, the plaintiff has to be regarded as a bonafide holder in due course within the meaning of Sec.9 of the Act. Sec.9 of the Act defines the term ‘holder in due course’ as follows: “Holder in due course’ means any person who for consideration became the possessor of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer, or the payee or endorsee thereof, if payable to order, before the amount mentioned in it become payable, and without having sufficient cause to believe that any defect existed in the title of the person from whom he derived his title.” So, as per the above section, it is necessary for a person to be holder in due course that he should get possession of the promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if it is payable to bearer or he must be payee or the endorsee thereof, if payable to order or to the order of the payee. The plaintiff has got into possession of the promissory notes Exs.A-1 and A-2 by virtue of the assignments under Exs.A-5 and A-6 endorsement by paying consideration as stated therein. The oral and documentary evidence proves that the plaintiff is a bona fide holder in due course as defined under Sec.9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The plaintiff having parted with his money by paying to the assignor, is entitled to get money from the defendant who has executed the pro-notes Exs.A-1 and A-2 in favour of the assignor. It is very difficult to accept the case of the defendant basing upon Exs.B-1 and B-2 with regard to the suit pro-notes. Hence, I hesitate to believe the version of the defendant. The trial court also found that the discharge pleaded by the defendant is not true. 16. Under the circumstances, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts under Exs.A-1 and A-2 also. The judgment and decree of the trial court so far as Exs.A-1 and A-2 pro-notes are concerned is liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the first appeal is allowed. The suit is decreed in its entirety. No costs.