Mukerji, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the Plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suit by the Additional Civil Judge of Kanpur.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 13,600 including interest on the foot of two promissory notes which were alleged to have been executed by one Ram Kumar the father of the minor Respondent, in favour of Madan Lal who was the father of the first Plaintiff and the husband of the second Plaintiff. The promissory notes on which reliance was placed by the Plaintiffs were executed, one, on the 25th July 1945 and the other on the 26th July 1945 for a sum of Rs. 5000 each. In the plaint, by inadvertence, the second promissory note was shown to have been executed on the 26th of July 1946. The original promissory note makes it perfectly clear that the year 1946 shown in the plaint in respect of the second promissory note was a mistake and that the year of the execution of the second promissory note was also 1945.
(3.) THE defence was a denial of liability under either of the two promissory notes. In para 7 of the additional pleas it was clearly stated that the Plaintiffs' allegation that Ram Kumar executed any ruqqa or receipt in favour of the Plaintiff was not admitted. There was a denial of not only execution in the narrow sense of the word but there was also a denial of consideration. The Defendant contended that Ram Kumar was a person of loose morals having been given to women and wine and because of these activities he incurred debts which could not be binding on the minor son, the Defendant of the suit. It was contended by the Defendants that there was no necessity for the loan alleged to have been taken and alleged to have been evidenced by the two promissory notes in the suit.;