1. The plaintiff sued as really entitled on a promissory note executed by the second defendant in the name of the first Ha also asked for relief against the first defendant for not having collected the, money and paid it over. The munsif made a decree against the second defendant only for the suit amount, The Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the suit on appeal by him. The plaintiff preferred no appeal or memorandum of objections nor does it appear that he asked the Judge to make a decree in his favour against the first defendant on the ground that he admitted having received the money. The plaintiff prefers the second appeal and claims a decree against the first defendant. The ruling in Kulaikaia Pillai v. Viswanatha Pillai I.L.R. (1905) Mad. 229 is admittedly against the plaintiff's contention that the Judge should have passed such a decree under the old Code. Rup Jaun Bibee v. Abdul Kadir Bhuyan I.L.R. (1901) Cal. 643, Iswardhari Singh v. Bibisahebzadi I.L.R. (l908) Cla. 538, Subramanian Chetty v. Veerabhadran Chetty : (1908)18MLJ452 and Kuppusami v. Vijia Nainar : (1908)18MLJ229 , were referred to. The first case was distinguished [Kulaikada Pillai v. Viswanatha Pillai I.L.R. (1905) Mad. 229. The second Calcutta case merely follows the first. The two Law Journal eases are distinguishable as not dealing with the present question. The first of them simply deals with the question as to the competency of the Court to grant a lower relief not claimed by way of appeal when the higher relief granted to him by the Original Court is refused on appeal. The second Law Journal case can be said only to express a possible view. No case has been cited in which, it was held that the Judge was wrong in not passing a decree, not asked for at all in any manner. We must therefore hold following that the suit was rightly dismissed. We dismiss the second appeal with coats.