(MANEM) AYYANNA Vs. PULAVARTI VEERABHADRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in Small Cause Suit No. 324 of 1922.

(2.) The petitioner sued to recover Rs. 402-11-6. Defendants 1 and 2 who were immediately liable remained exparte, 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 question for determination is whether inasmuch as the letter begins with "Manem Ayyanna and Dontu Setti Basavalingam offer respects," continues "In case money is not realised....We agree to pay the said amount" and is signed only by Manem Ayyanna. Manem Ayyanna can be held responsible or whether on the other hand it should be held that Manem Ayyanna only contracted to be held responsible in ease Dontu 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 be held responsible unless the others joined. In support of this argument, the remark of Brett, L.J., in Exparte Hardiny, In re Smith Flaming V/s. Co. 1879 12 C.H.D 566. (557) 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.