JUDGMENT

Mackney, J - In Insolvency Case No. 4 of 1931 in the District Court of Tharra-waddy, one Maung Tun Tin applied for adjudication as an insolvent. He was adjudicated insolvent. A receiver was. appointed to deal with the estate, the receiver being the present respondent U Maung Maung. In the list filed by Tun, Tin showing the debts owed to him were two promissory notes payable by U Ba. Ohn, the present appellant, one being for Rs. 1,840 and the other for Rs. 6,720. The receiver sued U Ba Ohn on these, promissory notes, in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1933 in respect of the Rs. 6,720 promissory note, and in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1933 in respect of the Rs. 1,840 promissory note. The learned District Judge has given a decree in favour of the plaintiff in both suits. Against these decrees U Ba Ohn has now appealed. Similar considerations apply in both appeals. As regards the promissory note for Rs. l,840i this was signed by U Ba Ohn on 14th October 1930 in favour of Maung Tun Tin. It appears that U Ba Ohn had agreed to buy 4000 baskets of paddy from Maung, Tun Tin at Rs. 186 per one hundred baskets. He had given an advance of Rs. 1,600 in cash, but failed to complete the purchase. Meanwhile the price of paddy dropped rapidly, and in October it was not far off Rs. 100 per one hundred baskets. Accordingly, as was customary, U Ba Ohn being unable to give further cash to Maung Tun Tin, executed this promissory note. It will be seen that the two amounts of Rs. 1,600 and Rs. 1,840 just about cover the difference between the cost of 4000 baskets at Rs. 186 per one hundred baskets and at Rs. 100.

2. As regards the other promissory note for Rs. 6,720, Ex. A, this was executed on 19fch October 1930 by U Ba Ohnin favour of one Maung Aung Po, and on the same date it was endorsed by the latter in Maung Tun Tin's favour. It seems that Maung Aung Po had undertaken to pur. chase from Tun Tin 14300 baskets of paddy at Rs. 211 peer hundred baskets and 2000 baskets of paddy at Rs. 210 per hundred baskets. Maung Aung Po says that on the fall of the market, he had to execute promissory notes for over Rs. 1,000, over Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 600, and that when he obtained Ex. A, the promissory note for Rs. 6,720 from U Ba Ohn in similar circumstances to cover the fall in the price of paddy, which U Ba Ohn had agreed to purchase from him (Maung Aung Po), Maung Tun Tin required him to endorse the promissory note to him. Thus Maung Aung Po gave Maung Tun Tin promissory notes to the value of over Rs. 18,300. The difference between the price of the paddy which he had agreed to purchase from Maung Tun Tin at the agreed rates and at Rs. 100 per hundred baskets is Rs. 18,073: so that the promissory notes covered the profits due to Maung Tun Tin. Maung Aung Po also states that at the time of the agreement he made'Maung Tun Tin an advance of 20 per cent i in cash: this would be about Rs. 6,874. It would thus appear that Maung Aung Po gave Maung Tun Tin far too much cover; and no explanation has been offered for this. However in Insolvency Case No. 71 of 1930 Maung Tun Tin applied for the adjudication of Maung Aung Po and two others as insolvents, and in his application he specified two promissory notes of Rs. 11,613 and Rs. 1,600 executed in his favour. Presumably from Aung Po's evidence the first one is the one that Maung Aung Po referred to as the promissory note for over Rs. 10,000, and the "second promissory note" must refer to what Maung Aung Po specified as one of over Rs. 1,000. We do not know what became of the one of Rs. 600. (The total value of promissory notes would thus be Rs. 19,933.) This insolvency application was subsequently withdrawn with the permission of the Court, as MaunS Tun Tin said he had settled with Maung Aung Po. In the evidence which has been, recorded in these suits now under appeal, Maung Tun Tin states that he settled these two promissory notes "in consideration of Rs. 340 in cash and of Maung Po's endorsing Ex. A" to him. Now, the case was wi