The appellate court can consider subsequent changes in law to grant relief, confirming that earlier conditions preventing suit no longer apply.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Aligarh, dismissing his claim against defendant No. 1, while decreeing it against defendant No. 2.

2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by Sri Mathura Prasad on the 31st of March 1951 against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for the recovery of Rs. 18,100/- from them on the basis of a pronote executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 endorsed that pronote in his favour for consideration and the plaintiff being thus the holder in due course of that pronote was entitled to recover the amount due on it from both the defendants.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1, while it proceeded ex parts against defendant No. 2. The contesting defendant admitted the execution of the pronote, but denied consideration. He also denied the endorsement in favour of the plaintiff and the payment of any consideration by him to defendant No. 2. The circumstances under which the pronote was alleged to have been executed by him might appropriately be stated in his own words :
"(4)(a). Khan Bahadur Mohd. Khalilul Rahman Khan Saheb gave an application under the Encumbered Estates Act for arrangements with respect to his debts. Besides other debts he owed money in respect of pronto to Mohd. Salimulla Khan, father of defendant No. 2 also. The special Judge, 1st grade passed a decree against him in respect of the debt of Salimullah Khan and all the decrees in respect of the debts were sent to the Collector, Mathura for adjustment.
(b) By chance, the actual creditor and the judgment debtor aforesaid died. Defendant No. 2 became the sole heir of the creditor as his son and the contesting defendant and Bibi Umatul Hafiz Begum became the heirs of the judgment debtor as his own nephew and as his widow.
(c) The amount due under decree No. 2 of 1936 aforesaid which carried interest amounted to Rs. 58403/13/8 on 7-11-44. A private compromise was arrived at between the contesting defendant and defendant No. 2 with respect to the realization of the amount aforesaid and a deed of agreement, in accordance therewith was executed on 7-11-44 and registered, on the basis of which the defendant No. 2 was paid a sum of Rs. 38238-12-11 in cash after allowing credit for a sum of Rs. 1008-3-9 in respect of decrees relating to profits and a sum of Rs. 1056-13-0, as profits not decreed, which were due to defendant No. 1 and sister of defendant No. 1 and a sale was made of Mauzas Goeti, Sultanpur, Kanpur and Mirzapur, tahsil Kasganj, district Etah Mohal Karimullah Khan for a sum of Rs. 18100 and the sale consideration of Rs. 18100 was allowed as set off by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1.
(d) The said Mauzas formed the ancestral properly of defendant No. 2, which Haji Mohd. Swaleh Khan Saheb deceased, brother of the contesting defendant, purchased at an auction sale. After his death, the contesting defendant and his sister inherited the said mauzas from Haji Sahab aforesaid. The contesting defendant is the lumbardar of the villages aforesaid with the exception of mauza Mirzapur. It was his (sic) desire to purchase back the shares sold by auction in the ancestral villages. Due to intimate relations defendant No. 1 agreed to make a sale of them to defendant No. 2 in accordance with the latter's desire. Their price was settled at Rs. 18100 and credit for the same was allowed. The villages aforesaid were also, however, subject to the charge of the debts due by Haji Mohd. Swaleh Khan in the case under the Enc