M RAMIAH PILLAI Vs. P A SANKARANARAYANA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for money Defendants 1 and 2 were the Directors of a Bank known as the Trivandrum Bank Ltd., which is now in liquidation. Plaintiffs 1 to 3, who are father and sons, had deposited various amounts in the said Bank and a sum of Rs. 4500 - was due to them from the Bank in November 1939 on account of deposits which had matured and become repayable in August and September 1939. The plaintiffs case is that these deposits were made by them on the personal request and assurances of safety made by defendants 1 and 2 the Directors of the Bank, and that, since there was a Bank crisis in November 1939, at the request of defendants 1 and 2 they allowed these deposits to remain in the Bank in order to help it and inspire confidence among its depositors on a written agreement, Ext. A, given by defendants 1 and 2 on 29-11-1939 undertaking to return the amount with interest at 6 per cent per year within twelve months. The personal liability undertaken by defendants 1 and 2 was in addition to the Banks responsibility. The suit was brought on 4-11-1946 on Ext. A for the recovery of Rs. 4500 and interest from defendants 1 and 2, and to save the suit from limitation plaintiffs relied upon a signed acknowledgment alleged to have been made by defendants 1 and 2 on 27-11-1943 at the foot of Ext. A itself. The acknowledgment is Ext. A-l.

(2.) Both defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit. Defendant 1 contended inter alia that the agreement, Ext. A, was not supported by consideration and could not therefore be enforced. Defendant 2 denied that he had signed the acknowledgment, Ext. A-l, and contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that Ext. A was executed only by way of a collateral security and that it had been discharged by the plaintiff being given and accepting assignments of certain decrees obtained by the Bank. The lower court repelled these contentions and gave the plaintiffs a decree in terms of the plaint; and this appeal is filed by defendant 2 against that decree. Defendant 1 has not filed any appeal and has acquiesced in the lower courts decree.

(3.) We shall first consider the question of the genuineness of Ext. A-1, the acknowledgment. In Para.6 of his written statement defendant 2 stated that no acknowledgment was made by him, but when he was examined as Dw. 2 all that he was prepared to say even after seeing Ext. A-l was that he could not recollect having signed it. Even this he said in reply to a leading question put by his counsel, do you recollect to have acknowledged Ext. A like this. His reply to that question was no. He admitted that the signature in Ext. A-l purporting to be his resembled his signature. Plaintiff 3 and defendant 1 who have been examined as Pw. 1 and Dw. 1 respectively both answer that defendant 2 also has signed Ext. A-l and that he signed it in their presence. Exts. A, E, F and J admittedly contain the signatures of defendant 2, and a comparison of Ext. A-l with them would show that the signature in A-l purporting to be that of defendant 2 must really be his signature. From the evidence of Pw. 1 and Dw. 1 and in view of the circumstances mentioned above we are satisfied that defendant 2 has really signed Ext. A-l and that the lower court was right in holding the acknowledgment to be genuine.