1. The plaintiffs - appellants are a family of landlords and money-lenders in Palghat. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers, and the third Defendant is their nephew. They two owned extensive properties in the neighbourhood of Palghat, but have latterly got into difficulties and 1 and 2 defendants were adjudicated insolvents in 1932. The suit was laid for the recovery of a sum of about Rs. 58,000 due as per account Ex. A. The third Defendant was the only contesting defendant and the question in the appeal relates to his liability. The claim in the appeal has been limited to a sum of Rs. 15,000 on the ground, perhaps, that the third defendant has not assets enough to yield anything more, or on the ground that the balance could be realised from the assets of 1 and 2 defendants. But this makes no difference, so far as the question to be decided is concerned.

2. The point in dispute was embodied in one comprehensive issue, viz., whether the 3rd Defendants signature (to Ex. A), has not been obtained under circumstances mentioned in his written statement and whether if so, he is not liable. The story in the written statement was that the third Defendant had from his infancy been living