RANGAYYA NAIDU Vs. SUNDARAMURTHY MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed against the decree given by the learned District Munsiff of Ranipet in S.C.S. No. 127 of 1941. The suit was filed by the plaintiff as endorsee of a promissory note against three defendants. The first defendant is the father and guardian of his minor son the second defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the promissory note had been signed by the first defendant both in his personal capacity and as guardian of his son the second defendant. The consideration of Rs. 243 was alleged to have been paid in cash. The first defendant admitted the genuineness of his signature in so far as it affected himself, but denied its genuineness in so far as he is supposed to have signed it as guardian of his son. He says, however, that when he signed the promissory note it was only a blank piece of paper and that he received only Rs. 5 as consideration and that amount also not from the payee but from the payee's step-son. The third defendant pleaded that his signature was forged.

(2.) The findings of the learned District Munsiff were that all the signatures of the first defendant were genuine and that the story that he signed on a blank piece of paper was incredible. The evidence of the plaintiff that Rs. 243 was paid in cash was also rejected and the learned District Munsiff held that only Rs. 5 was received by the first defendant. This, however, did not involve the practical dismissal of the suit, as he further held that consideration had already passed in the form of prior indebtedness to the payee's step-son. On these findings a decree was given as against the first defendant and against the second defendant to the extent or his joint family interest but the suit was dismissed as against the third defendant. This is a petition by the first and second defendants against that decree.

(3.) It was argued in the first place that there was no evidence upon which the findings can be based that the first and second defendants received consideration for the amount of the promissory note, in the sense that there is no positive statement by any witnesses which has been adopted by the learned District Munsiff in his judgment. This is no doubt true, but it seems to me that there is no law which prevents a Court from seeking the truth somewhere midway between the statements of parties to a suit. In this case, quite clearly, the learned District MunsifF holds, as the most significant feature in the case, that the first defendant could never have signed the promissory note if he had not received consideration in some way or other to the extent recited therein. It does not seem to me possible, therefore, to interfere with this decision on the ground that the findings of facts are based on no evidence.