Curgenven, J.

1. This second appeal is preferred by defendants 1 and 2 against the decree of the Court of the Small Causes of Trichinopoly reversing the decree of the Additional District Munsif of Kulitalai dismissing the plaintiffs suit upon a promissory note. The plaint alleged that the defendants jointly executed a promissory note, for Rs. 500 in June 1919 to Virasami Naidu, the divided brother of the plaintiff. Virasami Naidu died in October 1919 and about a month before his death executed a settlement deed, Ex. A, making his brother the plaintiff manager for the purpose of applying certain properties to charitable objects. One of the items of property named in the deed was the suit promissory note. This note was not produced in the case, the allegation in Ex. A, being that it was with Viraswami Naidus wives, with whom the had quarreled. A question for decision in second appeal is whether the entry relating to this promissory mote in Ex. A, is evidence of its existence upon which a decree against the defendants can be passed. Defendant 1 who contested the suit denied, having executed any such note. His brother defendant 2 was ex parte. The learned Subordinate Judge in re