1. In my opinion it was open to the defendants under proviso (3) to Section 92 of the Evidence Act and Section 46 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to prove that the promissory note was executed and delivered only as security for the payment of future instalments to the chit fund. Compare Sundram Chetty v. Damodaram Chetty 84 Ind. Cas. 146 : (1924) M.W.N. 529 : A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 850. There is evidence that the note was executed and delivered only as such security. The endorsement regarding the payment of Rs. 130 is not necessarily inconsistent with the defendant's a case. I see no sufficient reason to interfere. This petition is dismissed with costs.