1. A. S. No. 211 of 24. I have come to the conclusion, not without considerable reluctance, that this appeal must be allowed. The case was brought on two promissory notes, dated the 10th April, and the other the 2t5h April 1923, and there is no doubt that some of the defendants were previously engaged in the conduct of a motor bus concern known as the Canara Transport Co. It seems to me clear that efforts were made which eventually succeeded to get the appellant Panduranga Bhatta into this business to set it on its feet, because it was in or about the beginning of 1923 in a very bad way and owed money to several creditors of whom the plaintiff was one. The learned Judge relied upon a document, Ex. 4, as proving not merely that the appellant Panduranga Bhatta was a partner as and from its date as he had been before and that was to cover the promissory note of the 10th April. In my opinion, the document when looked at clearly indicates that it was meant to speak as from the date that it came to birth and that it purported to constitute the partnership as from 17th April 1923. Therefore, prima facie there would be no liability on the appellant in respect of the promissory note