1. The plaintiff sued as really entitled on a promissory note executed by the second defendant in the name of the first Ha also asked for relief against the first defendant for not having collected the, money and paid it over. The munsif made a decree against the second defendant only for the suit amount, The Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the suit on appeal by him. The plaintiff preferred no appeal or memorandum of objections nor does it appear that he asked the Judge to make a decree in his favour against the first defendant on the ground that he admitted having received the money. The plaintiff prefers the second appeal and claims a decree against the first defendant. The ruling in Kulaikaia Pillai v. Viswanatha Pillai I.L.R. (1905) Mad. 229 is admittedly against the plaintiffs contention that the Judge should have passed such a decree under the old Code. Rup Jaun Bibee v. Abdul Kadir Bhuyan I.L.R. (1901) Cal. 643, Iswardhari Singh v. Bibisahebzadi I.L.R. (l908) Cla. 538, Subramanian Chetty v. Veerabhadran Chetty (1908)18MLJ452 and Kuppusami v. Vijia Nainar (1908)18MLJ229 , were referred to. The first case was distinguished [Kulaikada Pillai v. Viswanatha Pillai