YELURI SATYANARAYANA (DECEASED) Vs. YELLURI MALLAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition arises out of Small Cause Suit No. 1399 of 1929 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Guntur in which the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of money due to him evidenced by the promissory note (Ex. A) which itself was in renewal of an earlier promissory note (Ex. A-1). Both these notes were executed by the defendants mother Venkayamma. In the body of the notes the minor defendants are described as the makers with the words "represented by their mother and guardian Venkayamma" but she signed the notes without any such description attached to her name. Ex. A-l itself was in renewal of an earlier promissory note (Ex. A-2) executed by the defendants father on the 28 February, 1922. According to the Hindu Law the sons are liable to pay their father's debt to the extent of the joint family properties received by them from their father or other assets inherited by them from him. The District Munsif held that on a construction of the suit promissory note it was not intended to make the defendants liable. Referring to Subbanna V/s. Subbarayudu (1925) 50 M.L.J. 125 the learned District Munsif observed: that the liability on a promissory note must be determined on the wording of the note and, in each case, the question is whether the instrument has been so drawn in form as to make the executant liable personally or only in his capacity as agent, guardian etc.

(2.) He then thought that the mother did not intend to make the sons liable because she had used feminine gender in the operative part of the note. This seems to be scarcely relevant as one finds it difficult to conceive in what other form the promissory note can be drawn up. Finally purporting to follow the decisions in Ramaswami Mudaliar V/s. Muthuswami Aiyar (1915) 30 I.C. 481 (1), Subbanna V/s. Subbarayudu (1925) 50 M.L.J. 125 and Muthuswami Naicken v. Soma-sundaram Mudaliar he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has filed this Revision Petition.

(3.) The Revision Petition first came on for hearing before Sundaram Chetti, J. The respondents did not appear. Following the decision in Ramajogayya V/s. Jagannadhan (1918) I.L.R. 42 Mad. 185 : 36 M.L.J. 29 (F.B.) and Meenakshisundaram Chetti V/s. Ranga Aiyangar (1931) 139 I.C. 383 the learned Judge set aside the lower Court's decree and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff as sued for. Afterwards the respondents applied to set aside the ex parte decree by showing sufficient cause for their non-appearance. The ex parte decree was accordingly set aside and the petition came up for disposal before our brother Varadachariar, J. The learned Judge referred the matter to a Bench of two Judges who referred it to a Full Bench.