ALAMURI SITARAMASWAMI, MINOR BY NEXT FRIEND NUKA SUBBARAJU APPOINTED NEW NEXT FRIEND IN THE PLACE OF SURAMMA DECEASED Vs. SREEMATH PRATIVADI BHAYANKARAM ANNAM VENKATA RAGHAVACHARYULU IYYAVAR LUMGARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised by this appeal is whether the plaintiff appellant is entitled to recover on a pro-note which is the third renewal of the pro-note originally executed by a deceased testator, those renewals having been given by two cut of three executors appointed by his will.

(2.) The first objection taken to the plaintiff's case is that two out of the three executors were not competent to act alone. That is negatived by Section 92, Probate and Administration Act, V of 1881, unless the defendants respondents can show that the will contains in the words of the section "a direction to the contrary". We have read the will, but cannot find any such direction in it, either express or implied.

(3.) It is then said that Section 92 deals only with several executors and that the word several there means possessing powers to act severally." We have been shown no authority whatever for this contention, which is inconsistent with the use of the word several in ordinary parlance.-.