Letchiman Chetty vs Aruna Salem Chetty – clr volume 3 page 052_2

In the case between the payee of a promissory note (plaintiff) and the maker of the note (defendant), the court addressed whether a plaintiff is presumed by law to be the holder in due course of a negotiable instrument when the pleadings do not expressly set out the endorsements. It was determined that section 30 of the Bills of Exchange Act establishes a presumption in favor of the holder, deeming such holder prima facie to be one in due course, even when there are no specific averments as to how title was acquired after endorsement. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that possession of the note by the plaintiff raises a presumption of holding in due course, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove otherwise.

Withers J. — The findings established that under section 30 of the Bil