(Vatakkam Chirayil Parkum) ... vs T.P.E.N. Kunhi Kannan And Ors. on 9 October, 1929
108 at p. 110, and Sankara Subban Pattar v. Mangalaseri Kunhu [1910] 33 Mad. 34 at p. 35, where this Court observed that if, after the execution of an "on demand" promissory-note, the holder of the promissory-note made demands on the maker, then a subsequent indorsee from such holder could not be said to be a holder in due course" within the meaning of Section 9. However, as I said, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this particular case this point, as I have found that the lower appellate Court was entitled to come to the finding that the plaintiff had notice before he took endorsement of the defect of title of defendants 4 and 5 to the promissory-note in question.