P V GOVINDAN Vs. THAVARAYIL KINATHI NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit upon a promissory note dated 20 June 1925 executed by defendant 1 for himself and as agent of defendant 2 in favour of Ananthanarayana Brothers of Tellicherry. The plaintiffs case is that defendant 2 was a cart contractor of Messrs Aspinwall & Co., at Tellicherry, that in respect of dealings had by defendant 2 with the said company Messrs. Ananthanarayana Brothers & Co., stood surety for him, that the said Ananthanarayana Brothers was carried on by the plaintiff and his elder brother K. Ananthan, defendant 1 was the duly constituted agent of defendant 2 and defendant 1 on behalf of defendant 2 settled accounts with them, that a sum of Rs. 365 was found due and payable to Ananthanarayana Brothers and the suit promissory note was executed by defendant 1 in his own capacity and in the capacity of the agent on behalf of defendant 2, that the said Ananthanarayana Brothers ceased to exist, that the said note was assigned on 25 July 1925 exclusively to the plaintiff in his capacity as the proprietor of the plaintiff Company by K. Ananthan who was the owner of the said company and the elder brother of the plaintiff and therefore as such assignee he has now filed this suit. The defence of defendant 2 is that defendant 1 had no authority to execute the note, that on the note defendant 2 could not be rendered liable, that there was no valid assignment in favour of the plaintiff and he is not entitled to sue. Both the Courts have decreed the plaintiff's claim.

(2.) On appeal Mr. Variar has raised two contentions on behalf of defendant 2; (1) that on the note as it stands defendant 1 could not be made liable; (2) that the words on the back of the note do not constitute either an endorsement or assignment and the plaintiff is not entitled to sue. In regard to the first contention the main argument of Mr. Variar is that the promissory note purports to be executed by defendant 1 in his individual name, and the form of the note is such that defendant 2 could not in law be made liable. The note runs as follows: Rs. 365. (Rupees three hundred and sixty five only). On demand, I Thorappa Thenu's son Ahammad Kutty of Valluvampara, amsom and desom, Ernad Taluk, hereby promise and agree to pay to Ananda Narayana Brothers of Tellicherry amsom and desom, Kottayam taluk, or order (the abovesaid sum) with interest accruing thereon at the rate of 2 per cent per month. The abovesaid consideration Rs. 365 has been received by me in ready cash this day. (Two one anna stamps affixed) (Left thumb impression of) Ahammad Kutty in his own capacity and on behalf of P.V. Govindan.

(3.) Stress is laid on the words I, Thorappa Thennu's son Ahammad Kutty as indicating that it was only intended that Ahammad Kutty should be bound in his individual capacity; the mere fact that he purports to sign also on behalf of defendant 2 could not in law render defendant 2 liable. In my opinion this contention is not tenable. The note is a joint and several one having been executed by defendant 1 both in his individual capacity and the capacity of an agent. Under the Negotiable Instruments Act an agent can sign a promissory note on behalf of his principal. If the words Ahammad Kutty, in his own capacity were not there, but had stood Ahammad Kutty, on behalf of P.V. Govindan, there could be no question that on the note as it stands defendant 2 would be liable. A case similar in point can be found in Alexander V/s. Sizer (1869) 4 Ex C 102, where the note runs as follows: 1,500. On demand I promise to pay Messrs. Alexander & Co., or order, the sum of one thousand five hundred pounds, with legal interest thereon until paid, value received 16 August 1865. For Mistley, Thorpe, and Walton Railway Company- John Sizer, Secretary.