J U D G M E N T

The appellant is the plaintiff. The respondents, who are father and son, are the defendants. The appellant prayed for recovery of Rs.34,940/- on the allegation that the respondents executed in his favour a demand promissory note for Rs.32,000/- on 27.08.1992 undertaking to repay it with interest at 12% per annum and in spite of demand they failed to pay the amount. The amount of Rs.32,000/- includes the price of gold the respondents had allegedly borrowed from the appellant. In the written statement the respondents contended that they did not borrow any amount on 27.08.1992 and the claim is false. According to them the appellant kept the second respondent in illegal confinement and he and the first respondent were coerced into executing the promissory note.

2. The trial court rejected the contention that the promissory note was executed in vitiating circumstances. It found that the amount of Rs.32,000/- for which the promissory note was executed falls under three heads: (1) Rs.10,000/- which was the price of the gold ornaments the respondents had purchased from the appellant in connection with the marriage of the first respondent's daughter, (2) Rs.2,000/- which was t