Judgement Appeal from a decree of the Chief Court (May 21, 1906) altering a decree of the same Court on its original side (June 80, 1905). The suit was brought on August 19, 1904, by the respondents, a firm of native money-lenders, to recover principal and interest due on a promissory note for Rs.15,000 dated January 22, 1904, and executed by the appellant Cassim Ahmed Jewa, a resident of Moulmein, and his brother Hashim, a resident of Rangoon. This promissory note was in the following terms—" On demand, we the undersigned, Hasam Ahmed Jewa and Kasam Ahmed Jewa, jointly and severally promise to pay to M. R. K. V. Ramen Chetty, or order, the sum of rupees fifteen thousand only bearing interest at 1-8 per cent, per mensem for value received in cash." The First Court found that the note had been satisfied as alleged by the defendant to the extent of Rs.14,400 and gave a decree for the balance. In appeal the Chief Court found that it had not been Law. Rep. 37 Ind. App. 133 ( 1909- 1910) C assim Ahmed Jewa V. Narainan C hetty 59 proved that the note had been satisfied to any extent and gave plaintiffs a decree for the full amount claimed, but did not specifically allow interest after the institution of the suit. On November 25, 1906, leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was refused on the ground that the application was barred by art. 177 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. Special leave to appeal was granted by Order in Council on March 26, 1907. Thereafter, on April 25, 1907, the respondents applied to the Appellate Court to amend its decree by setting out specifically that interest was payable on the decretal amount, but the said application was dismissed on July 15, 1907. After filing their printed case the respondents petitioned for special leave to enter a cross-appeal so far as the decree of the Chief Court failed to include interest after the institution of the suit. A consent Order in Council was made on March 5, 1910, that they should have leave on the hearing of the appeal to appeal on the question raised. No cross-appeal was entered. A consent Order in Council was made on March 5, 1910, that they should have leave on the hearing of the appeal to appeal on the question raised. No cross-appeal was entered. Roskill, K.C, and J. W. McCarthy, for the appellant, contended that on the evidence the note had been wholly satisfied, or at least to the extent of Rs.14,400. De Gruyther, K.C, and Eddis, for the respondents, contended that the Chief Courts finding was right to the effect that no payments had been made in discharge of the note. The decree was erroneous in that it did not specifically allow interest from the date of suit to the date of decree and thenceforward till payment. The amendment to that effect prayed for in the Court below ought to have been allowed. Roskill, K.C., in reply. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. This is a pure question of fact. Their Lordships see no reason to disturb the judgment of the Court from which the appeal is brought. It does not appear to their Lordships necessary to go into the affirmative case made by Mr. De Gruyther. It is enough to say that in their Lordships opinion the judgment of the Chief Court of Lower Burma is right, and their Lordships agree with it for the reasons which they have given, and which it is not necessary for their Lordships to repeat. With reference to the two clerks, their evidence is not sufficient to support the defendants case. The evidence is extremely weak. They say it is customary to indorse on a promissory note the payments made on account. There is no indorsement on the promissory note, and there is no corroboration of their statement, which is positively denied on the other side. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal must be dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the appeal. The judgment of the Chief Court will be amended by the providing for interest subsequent to the decree in accordance with the prayer of the petition presented by the respondents.