Walsh, J.

1. A small cause suit was brought on a promissory note dated 22nd August 1927, executed by defend dant 1 in favour of defendant 2, and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff on 24th November 1927. Defendant 1 pleaded: (1) that the note was not sup ported by consideration, and (2) that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course. Defendant 2 said he had no notice of dishonour and hence the suit must be dismissed as against him. The lower Court found the suit note was not supported by consideration, that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course, and even if he were, he had notice of the defect in title of his transferor. The suit was therefore dismissed and this revision petition has been filed against the dismissal.

2. As regards the finding that the note itself is not supported by consideration, it had to be admitted for the petitioner that there is the evidence of the writer of the note, D. W. 2, who says that nothing was paid and that the real consideration was that defendant 2 was to get a sluice constructed and this sluice was not sanctioned. The lower Court has disbelieved the evidence of defendant 2 as P.W. 4 who says that he paid money under the note. Ther