1. The first question is whether the plaintiff can sue on the instrument. This question has been decided in Ramanuja Aiyenger v. Sadagopa Aiyengar 15 M.L.J. 249 and Subramania Tevan v. Arunachala Tevan 18 M.L.J. 186 against the view contended by the appellant and we follow those cases.
2. The other question raised is whether the plaintiff's suit can be dealt with as a suit for the recovery of the alleged loan apart from the instrument. There is no suggestion of this case even in the grounds of second appeal and we cannot allow the question to be argued now.
3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.
4. The memorandum of objections is not moved and is dismissed with costs.