S MUTHUSWAMI MANIAGARAN Vs. PERMANNAMALAI CHETTIAR FIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is upon a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000 on the 1 August 1929. Defendant 3 is the son of defendant 1. The father of defendant 3 died on 8 May 1923, leaving behind him a widow who is defendant 1 and a minor son defendant 3 herein and two unmarried daughters. The properties left by the father were managed by defendant 1 as defendant 3's guardian. In 1926 she purported to execute a power of attorney in favour of defendant 2 authorising him to manage the estate on her behalf. On the 27 September 1927 both defendants 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000 from the plaintiff on a promissory note Ex. A-l bearing the said date. The said promissory note runs as follows : Promissory note executed on 27 September 1927, in favour of P.A.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar A vergal by us both jointly, viz., (1) Kamakshi Ammal, wife of Nithyananda Muthuswami Moniyagarar, residing at Puthayakudi, Ayakudi Zamin, Palni Taluk and (2) her authorized Agent, Vadivelu Maniyagarar, son of Viswanatha Maniyagarar, residing at the said place. We have on this date received in cash Rs. 1,000" from your partner Periakaruppan Chettiar Avergal,. for our family expense and for pannai, etc., expense. We shall on demand bring and pay you. or order in cash the same together with interest, thereon at 2 per cent per mensem from this date. and get back this.

(2.) Two other promissory notes were executed : one on 28 November 1927 for Rs. 200 and another on 8 January 1928 for Rs. 100. In renewal of these three promissory notes on 1st August 1929 defendants 1 and 2 executed the suit promissory note Ex. A for Rs. 2,000. The said promissory note is in these terms : Promissory note executed in favour of P.A.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar Avergal, son of Valayapatti Nagappa Chettiar, by us both jointly, viz.,. (1) Kamakshi Ammal, wife of Nithyananda Muthuswami Maniagarar, residing at Pudhiyakudi, Ayakudi Zamin, Palni Taluk, and (2) her authorized agent, Vadivelu Maniagarar, son of Viswanatha Maniagarar, the said place : The sum due to you by us as on this date inclusive of the principal and interest in respect of our looking into the account with your partner Periakaruppan Chettiar Avergal, as regards the three pronotes executed by us in your favour for Rs. 1,000 on the 11 Purattasi of Prabhava (27 September 1927) and for Rs. 200 on the 13 Karthikai and for Rs. 100 on the 24 Margali is Rs. 2,000. We shall on demand bring and pay you or order in cash the same together with interest thereon at 2 per cent per mensem from this date and get back this. (Sd. on four one-anna stamps) Kamakshi Ammal. " " " V. Vadivelu Maniagarar.

(3.) The defence on behalf of defendant 3 is that on the promissory notes he cannot be rendered liable and further that there was no necessity to incur the said debt. The District Munsif who tried the case was of opinion that in so far as Ex. A-1 was. concerned, there was necessity and therefore he would support the plaintiff's claim to the extent of the amount advanced under Ex. A, and gave a decree for Rupees 1,000 with interest thereon against the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge confirmed his decision to the extent of the amount covered by Ex. A-1. On the evidence he came to the conclusion that on the date of the promissory note Ex. A-1 the resources of the family were considerably crippled with the result that for purposes of cultivation, etc., money had to be borrowed, that the income from the properties of the minor were hardly sufficient even for paying interest on the debts, that the lands were not leased out but were kept under pannai cultivation of the family which required naturally a large establishment, that these circumstances being known to the plaintiff there was no necessity to make an elaborate enquiry as to the purpose of the loan, that these facts clearly showed to the mind of the plaintiff that, for urgent family and litigation expenses, the money was required and therefore the circumstances in which the loan was taken showed clearly that there was a necessity for the loan, namely for the purpose of carrying on the ordinary vocation of agriculturists by which crops had to be raised for the purpose of maintaining the family and also for the expenses of the litigation which was actually pending;