Piggott, J.
1. This suit was brought upon a promissory note executed in favour of one Ram Narain. The plaintiff claims to be the true owner of the instrument from the time of its execution, and alleges Ram Narain to have been a benamidar for himself. He has also impleaded as defendants the heirs of the ostensible payee. After the suit had been decreed by the first Court, it was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Pilibhit, on the ground that only the ostensible payee can maintain a suit upon a promissory note. The Subordinate Judge has supported himself by authority of a Madras case, in respect of which it is contended here that the learned Judges who decided that case were referring specifically to a negotiable instrument as defined in Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881). I find, however, that there is clear authority of the same Court on the same point in Ramanuja Ayyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar 28 M. 205 : 25 M.L.J. 249 and in Subramanya Tevan v. Arunachela Tevan 18 M.L.J 186. According to Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only the holder of a promissory note can receive payment of the same so as to discharge the maker, and this section applies whether the promissory note in question was negotiable or not. The 'holder' of a promissory note is defined in Section 8 of the same Act, and means a person entitled in Itis own name to the possession thereof. In the absence of any ruling to the contrary, I am certainly not prepared to hold that the learned Subordinate Judge acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in applying to the decision of the question of law raised by the pleadings before him a principle which has been specifically laid down by one at any rate of the High Courts in India, and not dissented from by the Court to which he is subordinate. I dismiss the application with costs.