VARADHARAJAN Vs. SRI SAKTHI MURUGAN FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 25.6.1993 made in A.S.No.15 of 1993 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode. The second defendant is the appellant.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.523 of 1988 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Erode, stating that it is an unregistered firm doing money lending business and on 6.6.1985, the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.9,900 and executed promissory note promising to repay the amount to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of Rs.1.80 paise per hundred per month and defendants 2 and 3, as partners of the first defendant firm, signed the promissory note and obtained the money. It is the further case of the plaintiff that inspite of the repeated demands, the defendants have failed to pay either interest or principal and hence the plaintiff sought for a decree directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.13,998.60 with subsequent interest and costs. THE first defendant did not choose to appear in the suit and was THE second defendant, in his written statement contended that he is not a partner of the first defendant firm and he did not execute the promissory note and the signature found therein may be a forged one and he is not liable for the suit claim. THE trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the second defendant had put his signature in the suit promissory note and even though the second defendant is not a partner of the first defendant firm, knowingly he permitted himself to be represented to be a partner of the firm and hence he is liable for the suit claim as stipulated under Sec.28 of the Partnership Act, 1932 and decreed the suit as prayed for against all the defendants. THE second defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.15 of 1993 and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge confirmed the above finding of the trial Court an dismissed the appeal with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the second defendant has preferred the present second appeal. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the suit.

(3.) BEFORE filing the suit, the plaintiff has sent notice of demand to all the defendants by registered post and the second defendant has received the same and that postal acknowledgment has been marked the Ex.A-10. Both the Courts blow compared the signatures of the second defendant found in Ex.A-10, postal acknowledgment as well as the Vakalat singed by him with the signatures found in the suit promissory note and have concluded that the signature in the suit promissory note is that of second defendant. The law is well settled that the Court is competent to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature in view of Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act.