1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was on the basis of a pronote Ext. A executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 16101950. The main contentions raised by the defendant were that the note was not supported by consideration, that the note was executed under coercion and intimidation by the defendant and that subsequent to the execution of the note, it was materially altered by the plaintiff by affixing three one Anna Stamps so as to make that instrument a valid one.

2. The lower court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the note was supported by consideration, that there was no evidence to show that the note was executed under a coercion or intimidation, or to show that there was material alteration of the note, and decreed the suit.

3. In this appeal counsel for the appellant challenges the correctness of the findings of the lower court. He contended that the note was not supported by consideration because there was no ready cash payment as stated in the pronote. He submitted that the note was executed under the following circumstances: The defendant was a salesman of the Planters Company Limited Coonoor. One firm called A