JUDGMENT

Mya Bu, J - This application has arisen out of a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent in the Township Court of Ye for Rs. 409-12-0, alleged to be due on a promissory note. The respondent admitted execution of the promissory note, but pleaded that it was invalid by reason of certain facts alleged in his written statement, the gist of which is as-follows: That the promissory note was not executed for a cash loan of Rs. 305, as alleged by the petitioner, but that the respondent, who had contracted to purchase a piece of land from Po Yin, D.W. 1, which Po Yin and his brother and sister had mortgaged to the petitioner under a registered deed dated 8th June 1929, for Rs. 1,500 bearing interest at 2 per cent per mensem, and who had paid a certain sum of money to Po Yin in advance, visited the petitioner's house on the day of the completion of the sale, accompanied by Po Yin, and taking with him Rs. 1,700 for the purpose of paying up the mortgage debt to the petitioner and getting the registered deed of mortgage delivered to him; that upon that occasion the respondent made over to the petitioner the amount found due on the mortgage, which was Rs. 1,700, but, having received the amount, the petitioner refused to give up the mortgage-deed unless a promissory note which U Wa and U Lauk (U Wa being Po Yin's step-father) had executed in favour of the petitioner was discharged by the execution of a promissory note by the respondent; and that the respondent was at first unwilling to do so, but being afraid that he would not be able to get the mortgage-deed delivered to him, he executed the promissory note as required by the petitioner.

2. This version of the defence is not quite clearly stated in the written statement, but reading this written statement with the evidence tendered by the respondent, there can be no doubt what the version of the defence really was. It is further stated in the evidence adduced by the respondent that upon his, leaving the petitioner's house he did not take away the promissory note executed by U Wa and U Lauk, but that a short while later it dawned on him that he should have brought it with him, and he accordingly went back to the petitioner's house and obtained the delivery of the same to him. This promissory note was produced by him in Court (Ex. 2). It bears the date-17th June 1929. The only witness called in support of the respondent's own testimony was Po Yin.

3. The plaintiff averred that the promissory note sued upon (Ex. A) was executed for a cash loan of Rs. 305, and she adduced the evidence of two witnesses who were present at the time of the execution of the promissory note to prove that the cash loan was made on that occasion. The learned Township Judge accepted the story for the defence, and held that the promissory note sued upon was executed without consideration. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned Additional Judge of the District Court of Amherst held that the Township Judge was justified in believing the defendant's story and consequently held that

there was undue influence and the promissory note is void foe want of consideration as well.

4. During the hearing of this application in revision I made my opinion very clear to the learned advocates in the case that the views taken of the evidence in the case by the Courts below were manifestly the opposite of those which should be entertained upon a full view of all the material facts in the case. But I have taken time to consider whether the nature of the faults committed by the Courts below in arriving at the erroneous findings of fact would justify this Court's interference in revision. After taking considerable pains in going through the reported decisions on the subject since the time of the Privy Council case of Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh (1885) 11 Cal. 6, I have come to the conclusion that the ruling of Brown, J., in Maung Pa v. Abdul Ganni 1926 Rang. 214, following the ruling of the Chief Court of Lower Bur