( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against a reversing decree of the lower appellate court whereby his claim grounded on a promissory note was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff Ratanchand, who filed the suit out of which this appeal arises, died during the pendency of the appeal. His son, who was brought on record as his legal representative, is prosecuting the appeal. It will, however, be convenient to refer in this judgment to Ratanchand as the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE suit was laid against Mangalchand (defendant 1) and his father Laxmichand parakh (defendant 2), the present respondent. The Court of first instance, however, dismissed the claim against Mangalchand. The plaintiff did not appeal against that decree. Further, Mangalchand has not been joined as a party respondent in this second appeal also.

( 4 ) THE facts which are no longer disputed are these. The plaintiff was a registered moneylender and advanced, in the usual course of business loans on interest terms. Mangalchand is a natural son of Laxmichand. They used to take loans from the plaintiff. On 15 December 1958, Mangalchand executed a promissory note Ex. P-1 for an apparent consideration of Rs. 8,000/ -. T