R P KONETTI NAIKER Vs. JUTU GOPALAIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants to recover a debt due to them. The plaint alleged that the plaintiffs, who were dealers in cloths and other things, supplied cloths to the mother of the 1st defendant for the benefit and use of the first; and second defendants a who were then minors; that the 1st defendant executed, after attaining majority, a power-of-attorney in favour of the 3rd defendant, and that the latter, attaining under the power-of-attorney, executed a pro-note to the plaintiffs for Rs. 694-6-0, the price of the goods supplied by them. Paragraph 4 of the plaint alleged that the 2nd defendant was also liable, as the debt was incurred for the common expenditure of the joint family of the 1st and 2nd defendants; and, if the Court should be of opinion that for any reasons the 1st and 2nd defendants were not liable, the 3rd to 5th defendants must be made liable, the 4th and 5th defendants being the sons of the 3rd defendant.

(2.) The 1st defendant pleaded that the purchase of the cloth was not for the benefit of the family; that the power-of-attorney was not acted on, and that the 3rd defendant had no power to execute the pro-note under the power-of-attorney. The 2nd defendant repudiated liability and contended that the power-of-attorney executed by the 1st defendant was not valid and was not binding on him. The 3rd defendant denied personal liability on the ground that the note was executed by him as agent under the power-of-attorney executed by the 1st defendant.

(3.) The issues raised the question of the 3rd defendant s liability for the amount due under the note. Issues were also raised to try the question of his power to execute the note and of its validity as against the 1st and 2nd defendants.