Staples, A J C—The predecessor in title of the respondents, Mirzakhan, brought a suit on a bond for Rs. 800 dated 27th November 1927, executed by the appellant. The suit was dismissed, but on appeal the decree was reversed and the District Judge passed a decree for Rs. 912 with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from the date of the suit until realisation. The defendant has now preferred this second appeal.

2. The execution of the bond was admitted, but two pleas were taken by the appellant: one that he was a minor at the date of the execution and therefore was not liable and secondly, that the bond was executed under undue influence. These pleas were accepted by the trial Court, which decided the case really on the first plea of minority. The lower appellate Court however has found that the appellant Liladhar was not a minor and that there was no undue influence. The finding as regards minority would appear to be a finding of fact, but it is not, I think, binding upon this Court in second appeal, because the lower appellate Court was under a misapprehension with regard to the documentary evidence adduced in the case. I would refer to the two certificates, Exs. D-1 and D-4, a