( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is from the judgment and decree ofthe learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore in O. S. No. 15/78; in so far as it pertains to dismissal cf the suit against the 2nd defendant. The appellant- plaintiff instituted the suit en the strength of Ex. A-1 promissory note seeking a decree for P. s. 20,300/- alleging that Ex. A-l was executed by defendants 1 to 3 on 25-1-75 for Rs. 14000/- borrowed for purposes of carrying on business of running a touring talkies and discharge a mortgage debt in respect of the house bearing door No. 7/38 in Nellore town which stood in the name of the 1st defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are brothers and the 1st defendant is their mother. The suit promissory note recited that it was executed not only by defendants 1 to 3 but by one Syed Khasim the elder brother of defendants 2 and 3, but actually it was signed only by defendants 1 to 3. .

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 3 filed a written statement taking the plea thatthe plaintiff is a powerful person being the Sarpanch of Gandavaram Gram panchyat and he seized the equipment of the touring talkies belonging to them. Syed Khasim who is recited as one of the executants of Ex. A-1 did not sign and that the document was not supported by consideration.

( 3 ) THE 2nd defendant filed a separate written statement taking thespecific plea that on 25-1-75 when he was at Ellayapalem where he was working as Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, the document was brought by the 3rd defendant his younger brother, which by then was containing the signature of 1st defendant, his mother. The 3rd defendant complained that the plaintiff closed down the touring talkies and seized the projector demanding that Rs. 14,000/- should be paid towards the plaintiff s share of profits and until then the cinema projector and the equipment would not be released. The 3rd defendant therefore requested the 2nd defendant to extricate him from that predicament by singing on the promissory note and that their other brother Syed Khasim also agreed to sign. The 2nd defendant signed on the document on the clear understanding that it would be effective only if it was signed by all the four. The plaintiff who was present along with the 3rd deferdant was specifically informed about this by the 2nd defendant. It was also pleaded that the 3rd defendant informed him that their brother Syed Khasim refused to sign the promissory note and the note was torn off. Believing that statement, the 2nd defendant did not take any action for the return of the document He alleged that the 3rd defendant in collusion with the plaintiff got the suit filed.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 3 remained exparte. The plaintiff deposed asp. W. 1 and the alleged attestors of Ex. A 1 deposed as P. Ws. 2 and 3. The 2nd defendant gave evidence as D. W. 1. The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence on record held that the two attestors P. Ws. 2 and 3 were not present when the dccumcnt was executed and that they merely obliged the plaintiff by deposing in his favour. The learned Judge believed the evidence ot D. W. 1 and the circumstances under which he signed on the document Ex. A 1 and concluded that he did not receive any consideration under the document. In that view the learned Judge held that the suit promissory note was invalid in so far as the 2nd defendant was concerned, but as regards defendants 1 and 3 there was no evidence one way or the other and therefore they were liable as executants of the document Ex. A-1. In so far as the dismissal of the suit against the 2nd defendant was concerned, the present appeal was brought.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that when oncethe 2nd defendant admitted his signature on the document Ex. A-1, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was attracted and as there was no evidence from the side of the 2nd defendant to show that there was no consideration, the learned Judge ought (o have decreed the suit again