K. N. Wanchoo, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by a learned Single Judge as it involves important questions of law. The learned Judge has framed the questions also, but finally referred the whole appeal to the Full Bench.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this second appeal may be briefly narrated to understand the point involved. A suit was brought by Himmatmal and another against Jeevraj and another on the basis of a hundi said to have been executed by Jeevraj in favour of Himmatmal on Migsar Sud 15 Samwat 1993 (equivalent to 1936 A. D. ). The date on which the suit was filed is 4-1-1943. The case of the plaintiffs was that Jeevraj owed Rs. 450 to them for which he had executed this hundi. But as the hundi was dishonoured, the present suit was brought for Rs. 450 as principal and Rs. 300 as interest.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by Jeevraj defendant. He admitted the execution of the hundi, but his case was that Himmatmal wanted a loan from him. Jeevraj had no ready mone. , He, therefore, gave this hundi to Himmatmal and that the hundi was-without consideration. He also disputed the allegation of the plaintiff that the hundi was executed in Dhamli. His