Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 941 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tirupur, who succeeded before the learned trial Judge, but lost before the first Appellate Court, is the Appellant in the above Second Appeal. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,752/- with subsequent interest, due on a promissory note dated 27.10.1970 admittedly executed by the defendant-respondent herein, in favour of Uma Investments Private Limited, Coimbatore, with whom the defendant has entered into and was subscribing to a chit of the value of Rs. 10,000/- on and from 9.2.1970. The defendant became a successful bidder in the auction held by the said chit company and while drawing the prized amount has executed the promissory note in question for Rs. 8,250/- to ensure regular payment of the balance of instalments. But, it may be noticed at this stage since the said fact is vital and relevant for determination of what is projected before this Court, the printed promissory note reads that on demand, the defendant jointly and severally promised to pay to Uma Investments Private Limited or their order the sum of Rs. 8,250/- bearing interest at 12% per annum for the value received. It is not clearly specified as to what the sum of Rs. 8,250/- represents; nor is it anywhere found stated in the promissory note that it is connected with the chit transaction or it is with reference to payment of balance of instalments by the subscriber. Be that as it may, since the defendant defaulted, the said Chit Company assigned the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 24.5.1974 and the defendant appears to have paid only a sum of Rs. 100/- as against the promissory note towards interest on 26.10.1973 to the Chit Company itself. After exchange of notices, though the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 500/- by means of two cheques, a sum of Rs. 4,625/- with interest at 12% per annum as agreed was remaining outstanding due and therefore, the suit came to be filed on the said promissory note. 2. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff of several grounds and also contending that the plaintiff was not the holder in due course, that there was no valid assignment in favour of the plaintiff of the promissory note and that the suit claim is liable to be dismissed. 2. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff of several grounds and also contending that the plaintiff was not the holder in due course, that there was no valid assignment in favour of the plaintiff of the promissory note and that the suit claim is liable to be dismissed. After trial, and on considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for, overruling the objections of the defendant. Aggrieved, the defendant filed A.S. No. 14 of 1981 before the Sub-Court, Thirupur. The learned Subordinate Judge also rejected the claim of the defendant in so far as the four payments claimed to have been made to reduce his liability, are concerned. But, at the same time by placing reliance upon the provisions of Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) and the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Jannet Chit Funds P. Ltd., Messrs . v. M.N. Ethirajan (94 L.W. 507), chose to dismiss the suit on the view that the suit, which was filed on the basis of the assigned promissory note executed by the defaulting subscriber for his future subscriptions, will be hit by Section 25(2) of the Act, as it does not contain express recitals that the amount due under the promissory note was towards payment of future subscriptions of the chit and consequently, the suit was not maintainable at all and also barred under the said provisions of law. The learned first Appellate Judge consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial judge, resulting in the filling of the above appeal. 3. Mr. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while elaborating the substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission, contended that the dismissal of the suit and the rejection of the claim of the plaintiff by the first Appellate Court relying upon Section 25(2) of the Act is erroneous in law and that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in view of the decision of another learned Judge of this Court in Angammal v. R. Sankaranarayanan (1988 I M.L.J. 167 = 1988-1-L.W. 223). 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. V. Nicholas, while placing strong reliance upon the decision in Jennet Chit Funds P. Ltd.s case (94 L.W. 507 (supra) relied upon by the learned first Appellate Judge, contended that the decision in Angammals case (1988 I MLJ 467) (supra) is on a different aspect and that the same does not undermine the efficacy of the other judgment relied on by the learned first Appellate Judge and therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal at the instance of the appellant. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. The decision in Jennet Chit Funds P. Ltd.,s case (supra) is that of Balasubrahmanyan, J., arising under similar circumstances as in this case before me except that the suit therein came to be filed by the Official Liquidator of a Chit Fund Company against a defaulted prized subscriber and the claim came to be considered in the text of proviso to Section 25(2) of the Act. The learned Judge while analysing the scope of the mandarory provisions under Section 25(2) of the Act has in unmistakable terms held that the proviso in short stipulated that even though the suit may be for unrealised subscriptions by a defaulting prized subscriber, the suit shall fail if it is based upon a promissory note and that promissory note does not mention that it is being executed by the subscriber in respect of his subscriptions under a chit. After declaring the position of law thus, the learned Judge extracted the recitals contained in the promissory note, which was the subject matter of the consideration in that case, which, in my view, is almost on the same line as the one which is under consideration in the present case. 6. The decision on which the learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance is that of V. Ratnam, J. (as he then was), wherein the learned Judge though was construing an issue arising on the basis of Sections 25 and 26 of the Act, after adverting elaborately to the case law on the subject was more concerned with the nature and relationship that subsisted between a prized subscriber executing a promissory note in favour of the foreman and the foreman as such. That was a case wherein the claim by the defendant was that there was no relationship of debtor and creditor, which the learned Judge has chosen to reject and held that when a subscriber is allowed to draw the chit amount, he becomes a prized subscriber and the transaction is nothing but the grant of a loan to him from out of the common fund in the hands of the foreman and consequently, the relationship between the foreman and the subscribers in a chit is that of a debtor and creditor, with the only concessional facility for effecting repayments in instalments, subject to the withdrawal of that facility in the event of default being committed by the prized subscriber in the payment of any instalment. The other issue that was adverted to and determined by the learned Judge in this judgment was that the stipulation under Sections 26(1) and (2) that no transfer of the rights of a foreman to receive the subscriptions from the prized subscriber will be made without the previous sanction in writing of the Registrar, will in case of contravention by effecting transfrer without such previous sanction, render the transfer only voidable and not void. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the issue before us is not any one of those that fell for consideration in the decision in Angammals (1988 I M.L.J. 467 1988-I-L.W. 223) (supra) but only the one directly involved and decided in Jenner Chit Funds P. Ltd.s case (94 L.W. 507) (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned first Appellate Judge. In view of the above, the judgment in Angammals case (supra) is of no assistance to the appellant to get over the impediment placed by the other decision in Jennet Chit Funds P. Ltd.,s case (supra) which has the effect of disentitling a promissory note of the nature executed with such terms without specific mention in the promissory note itself that it was being executed in respect of the subscriptions in a chit being the basis of a suit claim before a Civil Court. Having regard to the recitals in the promissory note in this case, which does not contain any such information or statement, the decision in Jennet Chit Funds P. Ltd.s case (supra) squarely applied to the case on hand and has been rightly relied on and applied by the learned first Appellate Judge. In view of the above, I do not find any patent error of law warranting my interference with the judgment of the learned first Appellate Judge. The Second Appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. There will be, no order as to costs.