( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a money decree passed in O. S. No. 4179 of 1990. The plaintiff therein had contended that the defendant has executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- on 15-5-1990 and that there was an assurance that the amount would be repaid within a short period with certain interest which was not done. Certain further allegations Were made to the effect that the defendant had taken the money for business purposes and also that he has sold his house and pone away and that therefore, the plaintiff had no option except to ask for a decree against him. The plaintiff had also averred that he had met the defendant on a few occasions and asked for the money, that he was given assurance of the payment which did not materialise.

( 2 ) THE evidence basically consisted of the document in question. The oral evidence of the plaintiff supported by one of the attesting witnesses whereby, it was established to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge that the promissory note had in fact been executed as a collateral for the payment of Rs. 70,000/ -. The defendant took up the contention that the plaintiff is a shop owner and that he was tempo