Seshagiri Aiyar, J.
1. The argument in this Revision Petition is that as the promissory note recites that cash was received for the execution of the note, it is not open to the plaintiff to prove that the consideration was different from what was recited in the document. Reliance was placed for this purpose upon a decision of this Court reported in Adityam Aiyar v. Ramakrishna Aiyar I.L.R. (1913) M. 511 s. c. 25 M.L.J. 602. All that was decided in that case was that by oral evidence, it is not open to the parties to add to the amount of the consideration mentioned in a document. The question as to whether the actual nature of the consideration that passed between the parties can be proved by oral evidence was not considered in the case. It is settled law that the recital in a document as regards consideration having been paid in a particular way can be proved to have been falsely made. It is enough to mention in this connection the decision of the Judicial Committee reported in Lal Achal Ram v. Rajn Kasim Husain Khan (1905) L.R. 32 IndAp 113. There it was pointed out by Lord Macnaghten that an untrue recital in a deed should not preclude evidence being given of the real consideration. In a later case Hanifunnissa v. Faizunnissa I.L.R. (1911) A. 340 s. c. 21 M.L.J. 1126 the Judicial Committee held that the nature of the consideration can be proved by oral evidence. This is also the view taken also by Mr. Justice Banerjee in Chunni Bibi v. Basanti Bibi I.L.R. (1914) A. 537. Speaking for myself, I have no hesitation in holding that it is open to the parties to an instrument to show that the special consideration mentioned in the document is not really what passed between them. That seems to follow from Clause 1 of Section 92 of the Evidence Act. I think the District Munsif was right in this case in allowing evidence to be gone into regarding consideration ; he has found that there was good consideration for the note. This petition must be dismissed with costs.