Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. These second appeals arise out of three suits brought for amounts due respectively on three promissory notes. Two of them, O.S. Nos. 92 and 93 of 1936, were tried together and dismissed by the trial Court. The other O.S. No. 260 of 1937 was decreed. On appeal to the lower Court, the first respondent succeeded in obtaining decrees in all the suits. It may be mentioned here that in O.S. No. 260 of 1937 out of which S.A. No. 765 of 1939 arises the respondent also sought a decree against the temple of which the defendants who executed the promissory notes were trustees at the time of such execution, but this part of the claim was dismissed in both the Courts below and no question now arises with reference to it.

2. The promissory notes on which the two earlier suits were brought contained no reference to the trusteeship of the executants and the amounts were stated to have been borrowed "for expenses in connection with our trade". It appears however that the first respondent knew that they were the trustees of the temple and borrowed the amounts for the purposes of the temple. The learned District Munsiff found that though the executants did not sign their