Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The plaintiff-appellants suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was for the recovery of Rs. 1,600, the value of two gold jewels, given to the defendant and also for the recovery of Rs. 300, the value of 20 sovereigns, together with interest on these amounts. The first item was covered by an unstamped promissory note and the promissory note said to have been executed in support of the second item, has been lost. The plaintiff also set up two agreements prior in date to these promissory notes, under which the defendant agreed independently to pay the plaintiff these amounts. These agreements have been found against the plaintiff, by the lower Appellate Court.

2. As regards the claim, which was then put forward by the plaintiff based upon the original cause of action, apart from the promissory notes, the learned Subordinate Judge following a decision of this Court, in Muthu Sastrigal v. Viswanatha Pandam Sannadhi (1914) 38 Mad. 660, dismissed the claim. Mr. Somasundaram who appears for the appellants, admits that the decision, in Muthu Sastrigal v. Visvanatha Pandara Sannadhi (1914) 38 Mad. 660, would govern this case; but he presses me to say that in