Subrahmania Aiyar, J.

1. Upon the finding that the promissory note sued on was executed by, the first defendant on the date it bears, viz., the 6th of July 1898, and therefore, after he had ceased to be a ward of the Court of Wards, and had attained his majority, the question for determination is whether the claim of the plaintiff is sustainable in law. With reference to the decision of this question, the only facts relied on and proved are, the advance by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant of Rs. 2,500 on the 29th September 1895, when the 1st defendant was a minor, the execution by him of the promissory note bearing that date for the amount with interest at one per cent per mensem, and the execution, as aforesaid, after the first defendant had ceased to be a minor, of the plaint note, in settlement of the earlier one.

2. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was urged that the said advance being within the words of Section 2, Clause (d) of the Indian Contract Act, "an act done at the desire of the promisor" the 1st defendants promise under the present note was supported thereby and that the invalidity of the earlier promise did not prevent the advance so operating as consideration