Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Taking the law to be as above indicated, we have to Sfce how the facts stand in this case. It is perfectly clear that at the time of the suit loan, there was a debt due of a lakh and a half recoverable from the estate. The Advocate-General did not practically dispute this. Exhibit A, G 2, which is a draft mortgage-deed dated 8th of October, 1901, is sufficient evidence of the liability. By the letter Exhibit D dated 10th September, 1901, the 1st defendant asked for a loan of a lakh and a half. There can be no doubt that this loan was applied for to meet the liability which was enforceable against the estate. In the same letter the 1st defendant applied for an immediate loan of Rs. 7,000 on account of urgency to meet a decree debt and other debts out of the debts amounting to a lakh and a half that were recoverable from him. Before the date of the loan the defendant's agent bad been sent to the plaintiff to represent the urgency. The 2nd defendant, examined as the plaintiff's witness No. 3, says that the loan of a lakh and a half was absolutely necessary and that the amount of the suit pro-note was also comprised in the said loan. The witness also adds : "As I told him (Narasimmayya) that money was urgently needed, he spoke to Maharaja of Bobbili at Madras on my behalf about the urgency and caused money to be advanced." The 2nd witness for the plaintiff, his second manager, says : "From my enquiries I came to know that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had a necessity to borrow and I was satisfied with the necessity for borrowing money."