KOYYALAMUDI SUBBANNA Vs. KODURI SUBBARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have been filed against the judgment of Krishnan, J. Defendants 2 and 3 are the executants of the promissory notes in question. In some notes they described themselves as the guardians of the 1 defendant, in others as executors under his father's will. The 1 defendant was and continues to be a minor. The 2nd and 3 defendants are respectively the maternal uncle and the brother-in-law of the 1 defendant. The plaintiffs in these suits asked for a decree against the 1 defendant to the extent of the assets of his father's estate and against defendants 2 and 3 personally. It is not necessary to say what the decision of the Trial Court was, but the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suits against defendants 2 and 3 and passed decrees against the 1 defendant to the extent of the assets of his father. The plaintiffs preferred Second Appeals to the High Court and Krishnan, J., in all the three suits passed decrees against defendants 2 and 3. As the first defendant had not appealed to the High Court, the decree against him was not disturbed. Defendants 2 and 3 have filed the present Letter;, Patent Appeals. They contend that they are not liable on the promissory notes.

(2.) On a negotiable instrument only the executant is liable. This proposition admits of no doubt. The question that has in each case to be determined is, on a fair construction, who is the executant of the document? As Chalmers says: It is often difficult to determine whether a given signature is the signature of the principal by the hand of an agent, of the signature of the agent naming a principal. See Law of Bills of Exchange, 8 Edition, p. 91.

(3.) The law relating to negotiable instruments differs from the ordinary law of contracts in several respects. The liability must be determined on the wording of the note and in each case the question is: Is the instrument so drawn in form as to make the executant liable or the principal liable? In other words, who is the real executant of the documents? Is the executant in truth the principal although the agent's signature appears on the bill or is the executant the agent although the principal is named?