LAWS(PVC)-1920-8-82

DURGA PROSAD SEN Vs. KALI CHARAN AICH ROY

Decided On August 18, 1920
DURGA PROSAD SEN Appellant
V/S
KALI CHARAN AICH ROY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge of Tipperah dismissed it. The note on which the plaintiff sued is worded as follows: Handnote on condition of payment at sight. To Babu Durga Prasad Sen son of late Gura Prosad Sen inhabitant of Sacbar Pergannah Singair. On the 29th Bhadra 1324. I borrowed Rs. 2,000 for cloth business of you and others at Sachar Bandar. Afterwards owing to non-payment of that amount you have instituted Suit No. 445 of 1910 in the first Court of the Subordinate Judge at Comilla. Now by amicable settlement with you on behalf of the said business (or firm) Rs. 2,000 is settled as due. Not being able to pay this amount in cash I again to-day take this loan of Rs. 2,200 for that business. I will pay interest on this at the rate of 1 per cent. per mensem up to date of re-payment. finis, dated 16th Poush 1317 B.S. Sd. Kali Charan Aiah Roy son of Jagat Chandra Aich Roy of Joynagar, Perganna Singair, Thana Hajigange, District Tipperah.

(2.) The learned District Judge in interpreting this document has referred also to a previous handnote, as it was on the basis of this handnote that the suit referred to in the document now under consideration was brought and amicably settled. It seems to us that in so doing he has overlooked the fact that the document in suit is a negotiable instrument to which the provisions of Act XXVI of 1881 apply. Section 28 of that Act provides that "an agent who signs his name to a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque without indicating thereon that he signs as agent, or that he does not intend thereby to incur personal responsibility, is liable personally on the instrument, except to those who induced him to sign upon the belief that the principal only would be held liable."

(3.) Reading this note it will be seen that the defendant did not indicate that he signed it as an agent, nor can we find in the document itself anything which indicates that he did not intend thereby to incur personal responsibility.