( 1 ) 1. This is a revision petition on behalf of the plaintiff and it is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-7-1955 of the District Munsif, Narasaraopet, dismissing the suit.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the points canvassed before me a few facts need be mentioned. Channamsetty Pedda Puliah, respondent No. 1, Boligorla Yerrayya father of Respondents 2 to 4, Madagani Venkatigaou father of respondent No. 5, and Megali Pulligadu, respondent No. 6 executed a promissory note Ex. A-1 on 6-11-1945 promising to pay Rs. 300. 00 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. On 4-11-1948 they made an endorsement Ex. A1 (a) on Ex. A. 1 to the effect that a promissory note is executed for the sum of principal and interest for Rs. 410-4-0 due under the promissory note. The renewed promissory note, Ex. A-2 again bore the endorsement, Ex. A. 2 (a) by the promisors acknowledging the payment of Rs. 4. 00 on 2-11-1951 under Ex. A. 2.

( 3 ) THE petitioner brought SCS No. 500 of 1954 for recovery of Rs. 444. 00 towards the principal and interest due under the renewed promissory note. Respondents 1 to 5 resisted the suit. They contended that the suit promissory note had been