AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 114 words
Reilly, J.—In my opinion it was open to the defendants under proviso (3) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act and Section 46 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act to prove that the promissory note was executed and delivered only as security for the payment of future instalments to
the chit fund. Compare Sundram Chetty v. Damodaram Chetty 84 Ind. Cas. 146 : (1924) M.W.N. 529 : AIR 1924 Mad. 850. There is evidence
that the note was executed and delivered only as such security. The endorsement regarding the payment of Rs. 130 is not necessarily inconsistent
with the defendant''s a case. I see no sufficient reason to interfere. This petition is dismissed with costs.