SWAMINATHA PILLAI Vs. SLLAKSHMANA AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 3,862-3-2 being the balance due on a promissory note for Rs. 3,000 executed by the 3rd defendant, mother and guardian of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and by one Ayyaru Pillai. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded on the ground that the promissory note was executed by the 3 defendant as their guardian for purposes binding on their estate. 4th defendant was impleaded as he had given two letters of guarantee dated September 25, 1922, a September, 23, 1925, guaranteeing the payment of the amount to the plaintiff. Since Ayyaru Pillai died after the execution of the promissory note he could not be made a party to the suit and his heirs also have not been impleaded. As regards the consideration for the promissory note, it is admitted that it was executed for Rs. 1,000 paid in cash, and Rs. l,700 due to the plaintiff on prior dealings carried on by the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with the plaintiff, and Rs. 300 withheld for interest on he suit document for ten months.

(2.) The District Munsif held that t the promissory note is not binding on defendants Nos. 1 and 2 because it was not executed on their behalf by the 3 defendant in the capacity of guardian. He also held that the 4 defendant was not liable as the Plaintiff did not pursue his remedies against one of the principal debtors Ayyaru Pillai; and he reduced the rate of interest payable on the promissory note on the ground that interest reserved is exorbitant. In the result he passed a decree on the promissory note against the 3 defendant alone.

(3.) In appeal by the plaintiff the learned District Judge held that the 4 defend ant is also liable on the promissory note to the same extent as the 3 defendant and that the plaintiff is entitled to get interest at the full rate of 24 per cent, per annum reserved in the promissory note. He held, agreeing with the Subordinate Judge, that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, are not liable. In the result, a decree was given to the plaintiff against the 3 and 4 defendants in the light of the above findings.