1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Bakewell in a suit brought, by the plaintiff on two promissory notes for Rs. 2,000 each, alleged to have, been executed by the defendant. The defendant, who admittedly was a young boy just emerged from minority and was the undivided nephew of one Purushothama Sah who was possessed of considerable property, alleged in his written statement that there was no consideration for the notes, and he went on to set up a case that, he had been decoyed into the company of a young girl and had been drugged and that he had been made to sign his name on blank papers when he had not sufficient control over his mind and was in apposition to be dominated by the will of one Erappa Chetty, who introduced him to this woman. The learned Judge was not satisfied with the evidence produced by the defendant in support of this plea, but he thought the case was a sufficiently suspicious one to call upon the plaintiff to answer it; and the plaintiff produced evidence which the learned Judge describes, and we entirely agree with him, as mostly 'palpably false'. Finding, however, that the execution of the notes by the defendant was proved and that he had failed to prove that he merely signed blank papers, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the burden of proof which lay on the defendant had not been discharged, and, therefore, gave a decree for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for.
2. With great respect, while we entirely agree with the learned Judge's appreciation of the evidence, both for the defendant and for the plaintiff, we think that on the evidence as it stood as a whole at the close of the defendant's case, there was sufficient to throw the burden on to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has not satisfied that burden. It was held in the case of Moti Gulabchand v. Mahomed Mehdi Tharia Thopan 20 B. 367, which was recently followed by this Court in Sundarammal alias Sowbhagiammal v. Subramania Chettiar 30 Ind. Cas. 971 : 29 M.L.J. 236 that where the alleged executant of the note had just emerged from minority and had large expectations and no present command of money, very little was required to throw the burden on to the plaintiff. As the learned Judge has said, most of the plaintiff's story in this case is palpably false. His family are piecegoods merchants, and he says that the money he advanced to the defendant did not come from the piecegoods business, and that it was kept locked up in his box. He has not shown by satisfactory evidence that he was in possession of such a large sum as Rs. 4,000 and his own uncorroborated statements show that his money-lending business, if it existed at all, was exceedingly restricted. Then he has put into the box witnesses to prove, that these sums were borrowed by the defendant for the purpose of the business which was managed by his uncle, who carried on a large abkari business. The learned Judge has sufficiently shown how incredible it is that these large sums should have been lent to this boy without reference to the head of the family and without obtaining the promissory notes from him. We agree with the learned Judge that it is impossible in this state of the evidence to say what the exact truth is; but we think there is quite sufficient to throw the burden upon the plaintiff and that he has entirely failed to discharge it. We also think there is absolutely no doubt that he did not advance anything like Rs. 4,000 to this boy, though no doubt something was advanced on each occasion. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the learned Judge and dismiss the plaintiff's suit. Neither of the parties is entitled to any consideration and we, therefore, make no order as to costs.