PERIA MUTHUSWAMI NAICKEN Vs. SOMASUNDARA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant 2 executed a promissory note to the plaintiff on 27 July 1919. He was then the junior paternal uncle and de facto guardian of the minor, defendant 1. The promissory note was for the discharge of a mortgage debt over the minor's estate. In the body of the promissory note defendant 2 described himself as guardian and junior paternal uncle of the minor Somasundra Mudaliar (defendant 1), and he signed it as "Ramanatha Mudaliar Karnam." The point for decision in this case is whether he signed the note in his capacity as de facto guardian of defendant 1.

(2.) Now, in a matter of negotiable instruments which may pass from hand to hand to persons who have no personal knowledge of the original parties at all, the law that it must be clear on the face of the note who has executed it and whose estate is liable for it must be interpreted more strictly than in the case of a contract, and citations of cases which deal with contracts seem to me of little value in this connexion. I am clear that the proper principle is that elasticity in the interpretation of the law in the matter of a promissory note is not permissible, and that if parties do not make it clear on the face of the note that the executant signing it is binding not himself but some one else, they must themselves take the consequences.

(3.) In the present case I am unable to hold that the mere description of the executant as guardian and junior paternal uncle is sufficient to indicate that the executant did not intend to bind his own estate. On the contrary the note goes on to say I, (that is, he who signs, Ramanatha Mudaliar) have received cash Rs. 750. I shall on demand....... and the description of himself in the signature is not "guardian" but "karnam." I think it is clear that he executed the note in his own personal capacity, and that it does not bind and was not intended to bind the minor's estate.