Walsh, J.

1. The plaintiff sued on a lost pronote which he said had been executed in his favour by the two defendants in June-July 1923. Defendant 2 is the mother of defendant 1. The parties are related in the following way: The plaintiffs wife is the daughter of a sister of defendant 2. Defendant 1 contested the suit. His mother, defendant 2, remained ex parte. Originally a decree was passed against both defendants ex parte on 22nd May 1929, but the suit was restored to file on 8th June 1929 on the application of defendant 1. Then plaintiff died and steps not having been taken to bring his legal representative on record the suit abated and was dismissed on 10th August 1929. On 26th October 1929 it was restored to file and plaintiff 2 added as the legal representative of plaintiff 1.

2. Defendant 1 admitted the execution of the pronote, the amount of which, according to both parties was Rs. 100, but he said that only Bs. 80 was received, the other Rs. 20 being credited as a payment on the note on the day after its execution. Of the money, whether Rs. 100 or Bs. 80 actually advanced, both sides agree that there was a repayment of Rs. 35 in July 1924. The plaintiffs case was th