JUDGMENT Harington, J. - This is a suit on a registered deed by which the Defendant, after reciting that Rs. 7,373 4 was due to the Plaintiff, that he was being pressed and unable to pay, covenanted to pay within one year Rs. 7,450 and interest-being Rs. 7,373-4 stated to be due, and Rs. 76 12 advanced at the time of the execution of the deed. The Defendant alleges that he was induced to execute the deed under the undue Influence of one Behari Lal, and that there was no consideration for the same. The execution of the deed being admitted, I held that the onus of proving undue influence and that the statement of the consideration in the deed was false, lay on the Defendant. 2. It was conceded that Behari Lal was not connected in any way with the Plaintiff and that no undue influence exercised by Behari Lal was at the instigation of, or with the knowledge of, the Plaintiff. 3. I accordingly held evidence of undue Influence by Behari Lal to be inadmissible as against the Plaintiff. Evidence on that point was therefore not gone into. 4. The substantial defence was that the sum of Rs. 7,373-4 alleged to be owing was the price of piece-goods sold to the Defendant during his minority. The money therefore was due under a contract which was unenforceable and so constituted no consideration for the bond. The agreement to pay is therefore void. 5. The Defendant was called he stated he came of age on 29th January 1904. It was conceded that the dealings in piece-goods in respect of which the Rs. 7,373-4 was owing were anterior to that date. But he swore be never had any dealings in piece-goods at all-a statement which the production of his own letters showed to be absolutely false. He also swore that the Rs. 76-12 was not paid to him for his necessary expenses as stated in the deed but to meet the costs of the bond and suggested without stating it positively that If there wag any balance It remained in the hands of the Plaintiff. 6. The evidence does not satisfy me that the statement in the deed as to the advance of its. 76-12 Is false, on the contrary I believe it to be true. 7. 6. The evidence does not satisfy me that the statement in the deed as to the advance of its. 76-12 Is false, on the contrary I believe it to be true. 7. It has been argued that the object of the deed is unlawful because it in effect makes the Defendant liable for debts contracted in infancy. I do not agree with the contention; there is nothing unlawful in an infant's paying for the property he has received and promised to pay for-only if he do not perform his promise he cannot be compelled by law to pay. 8. Here the contract on which the suit is brought is by a Defendant of full age, it is a new contract, by it the Plaintiff has debarred himself from suing until the expiration of one year after the date of the contract for monies which are alleged to be due at the date of the contract-and she has made an advance of Rs. 76 12. 9. There was therefore a new consideration for the promise on which the Defendant is sued and in my opinion, in the absence of any statutory provision such as that to be found in England in sec 2 of the Infants Relief Act, 1874, he is liable. There must be judgment for the Plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs on scale 2.