JUDGMENT
1. It is found in this case that the defendant executed the pro-rote in favour of the plaintiff to induce him to sign the composition deed between one Shaiva Row, the maternal grand-father of the defendant and his creditors among whom the plaintiff was one. The creditors were to get 10 as. This finding is based on the evidence of the defendant. We must accept this finding. It is contended before us that there is no finding that the pro-note was executed with the knowledge of the debtor or without the knowledge of the creditors, and in the absence of such finding the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount sued for as the transaction cannot be held to be in that case opposed to public policy. This contention cannot be upheld as the evidence relied upon by the Subordinate Judge shows clearly that the pro-note was executed at the instance of the debtor and without the knowledge of the creditors.
2. It is also executed to carry out an arrangement to secure to one creditor an advantage over the others.
3. That the pro-note was not executed by the debtor makes no difference. Krishnappa Chetty v. Adimula Mudali (1896) I.L.R. 20 M. 84.
4. We must, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned Judge and dismiss the suit with costs throughout.
