1. The only point urged in this second appeal is that the Subordinate Judge's finding is not a legal finding, The suit is on a promissory-note. The plaintiff stated that cash consideration passed, at the time of the execution of the promissory-note. The defendant's plea was that no cash consideration passed at the time, but it was executed, as a sort of security, for his good conduct, in connection with the partnership which was being carried on between him and the brother of the promisee of the promissory-note. The Subordinate Judge found that no cash consideration passed and the story of the defendant is true. Mr. Sesha Iyengar wants to build an argument upon the last but one sentence of his judgment.
The result is inevitable that the promissory-note Ex. A, renewing Ex. B is also a security merely for accounting for sums drawn by defendant as a partner.
2. From this, he wants to argue that the Subordinate Judge found that there was a contingent liability, arising at the time of the settlement of accounts. I am not prepared to agree with him. All that the Subordinate Judge was required to find was whether the story of the plaintiff was true or false and he distinctly held that the case of the plaintiff was not true and the case of the defendant was substantially true. That being so, it is unnecessary to consider the decisions in Sri Ram v. Sobha Ram-Gopalrai 67 Ind. Cas. 513 : 44 A.P 521 : 20 A.L.J. 315 : 4 U.P.L.R. (A.) 153 : A.I.R. (1922) (A.) 21 and Vishnu Ramchandra Joshi v. Ganesh Krishna Sathe 63 Ind. Cas. 673 : 45 B.p 1155 : 28 Bom. L.R. 488 relied upon by Mr. Sesha Iyengar.
3. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.