RAPAKA VENKATESWARLU ALIAS GURRAJA, MINOR BY NEXT FRIEND RAPAKA VENKATANARAYANA SARMA Vs. AYYAGARI SURYAPRAKASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond Ex. A, dated 26 September, 1898. The bond provided for compound interest at 13 1/2 per cent. per annum with annual rests. It was executed by the three brothers. One of the brothers died and the property and the liability fell to the other two brothers. On the 4 July, 1903, a portion of the property was sold and a payment of Rs. 709 was made towards the bond but this payment was not endorsed on the bond. On the 31 March, 1914, another payment of Rs. 20 was made and this was endorsed on the bond. In this the old payment of Rs. 709 was referred to. This endorsement was signed by one of the two surviving brothers, Subbarayudu. The elder brother Seshiah did not sign it. The 1 defendant is the adopted son of Seshiah. In the plaint the plaintiff relied upon this payment by Subbarayudu and endorsement as saving limitation. In the written statement all that the defendant stated was that the endorsement is not genuine.

(2.) Oral evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to show that the payment by Subbarayudu was authorised by Seshiah. The Subordinate Judge believed this evidence. That is all that Section 20 requires. The District Munsif dismissed the suit but the Subordinate Judge decreed it. The Second Appeal was filed in respect of only Seshiah's half share and all the grounds raised the question whether the action of Subbarayudu was binding on Seshiah and no other point has been raised. At the time of the hearing of this Second Appeal it is sought to be argued that the whole endorsement is not in the handwriting of Subbarayudu and cannot be relied on even as that of Subbarayudu. Mr. Somasundaram appearing for the respondent contends that it was never raised in the pleadings. If it had been pleaded he would have adduced evidence that Subbarayudu was practically illiterate and his case stands on the same footing as that of a marksman, and I may observe that the handwriting of the signature of Subbarayudu supports this suggestion. The letters are very big like those of a man who has just learnt the alphabet. This being a state of the pleadings and there being no such ground taken in Second Appeal, I do not think that Mr. Lakshmanna can be allowed to take such point here. It is also argued that there is no evidence to show that Subbarayudu was authorised to make the endorsement either in his own handwriting or get the same done by another, but the evidence only shows that he was authorised to make the payment. This is true. Section 20 does not require that the agent "in this behalf" must be more than an agent for the purpose of payment. It does not say that the agent who pays should also be authorised to make the endorsement or get the same done by another. It is enough if he was authorised to make the payment; it is not necessary that he should also be authorised in respect of endorsing the payment.

(3.) The Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Venkatasubba Rao, J.