1. We do not clearly understand the grounds on which the District Judge has dismissed this suit. The second defendant's Vakil, in the course of the trial, raised an objection that the promissory note was not endorsed to plaintiff by Subbamma, the payee. We are unable to agree with the District Judge that the objection was a fatal one. The allegation in the plaint is that the promissory note was executed in favour of Subbamma on account of plaintiff's estate. This was not traversed in the defendant's written statements, nor was any issue framed in regard to it. Even if it had been traversed, it was open to the plaintiff to have proved the truth of the allegation, and, if he had succeeded, he would have been entitled to a decree as the real owner of the amount due under the note.
2. We must, therefore, allow the appeal with costs, set aside the decree of the District Judge, and remand the suit for disposal in accordance with law.