MANEM AYYAMMA Vs. VPULAVAITH VEERABHADARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in S.C.S. No. 324 of 1922.

(2.) The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 402-11-6. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who were immediately liable remained ex parte, and the suit was contested by the 3rd defendant who had executed a letter of guarantee, Ex. C. The learned Judge has found him liable under this letter; and the question for determination is whether inasmuch as the letter begins with "Manem Ayyamma and Dentu Setti Basavalingam offer respects," continues, "In case moneys is not realised . . . . .we agree to pay the said amount," and is signed only by Manem Ayyamma, Manem Ayyamma can be held responsible or whether, on the other hand, it should be held, that Manem Ayyamma only contracted to be held responsible in case Dentu Setti Basavalingam also signed the letter. The learned Judge lays down the law on the point as follows: In a case of this kind the person that actually executed the document would be liable unless it was intended that if the other persons did not join, his liability should not subsist.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in such cases there is a presumption that the person who signed the document singly did not intend to beheld responsible unless the others joined. In support of this argument the remark of Brett, L.J., in Ex parte Harding, In re Smith Fleming & Co. (1879) 12 Ch. D. 557 at p. 566 : 48 L.J. Bk. 115 : 41 L.T. 517 : 28 W.R. 158 is cited. And, therefore, the doctrine that one of a number of sureties who signs a guarantee only agrees to be liable in case all the others sign, has no application.