JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The main point urged in this second appeal is concluded by the findings of fact arrived at by the learned District Judge. The plaintiff-respondent sued the defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs. 807-2-0 due on foot of a pro-note which was admittedly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 650. The defence set up was want of consideration. The trial Court accepted this plea and dismissed the suit, but on appeal the learned District Judge, after carefully going through the evidence and examining the story set up by the defendant-appellant in all its aspects, came to the conclusion that he had failed to prove that the pro-note had been executed without consideration. Mr. Mehr Chand for the appellant has tried to attack this finding, but he has been unable to point out any substantial error in procedure which would justify interference by this Court on second appeal. It must, therefore, be held that the defendant has failed to prove that the pronote was without consideration.

2. The second point urged by Mr. Mehr Chand is that in the pro-note no rate of interest is mentioned and as the plaintiff has failed to prove that he made any demand from the defendant before the institution of the suit, no interest was legally payable. In support of his contentions he relies on a decision of the Madras High Court-reported as Best v. Haji Muhammad Sait [1900] 23 Mad. 18. There are, no doubt, certain observations in that ruling which support Mr. Mehr Chand's contention, but so far as I am aware the view taken there has never been accepted as correct by this or any other Court. The question was recently considered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Framroz Eduljee Dinshaw v. Mahomed Essa where Macleod, C.J. (Coyajee, J., concurring) held that the liability on a pro-note payable on demand arises from the date of the note from which date the time of limitation begins to run and not from the date on which a demand is made for payment. Where therefore such a note is silent as to interest, interest is claimable under Section 80, Negotiable Instruments Act, at 6 per cent. from the date of the note. Following this ruling I hold that the learned District Judge was right in allowing plaintiff interest at 6 per cent. from the date of pro-note till realization.

3. No further point was urged. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.