A V PALANIVELU MUDALIAR Vs. NEELAVATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 26 January 1925, three sisters, who were the defendants in the action which has led to this appeal, executed in favour of the plaintiff a promissory note for Rs. 15,000. They agreed to pay him this sum, for the services rendered by him in the management of their joint estate, with interest at the rate of 1 per cent. per mensem from the date of the note until the date of payment. No payment was however made to him with the result that he commenced in January 1928 the present action to recover Rupees 20,000, the principal and interest due on the document ; and in the alternative he claimed that amount as remuneration for his services from March 1920, to January 1928.

(2.) Defendant 1, who was married to the plaintiff, did not contest the suit; but her two younger sisters denied the due execution of the promissory note by them, and raised other pleas to defeat the claim. On the issues, which arose on the pleadings, the trial Judge pronounced his judgment in favour of the plaintiff, and granted a decree for the amount claimed by him with costs. Against that decree, the two contesting defendants preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Court of appeal, and the suit was dismissed with costs as against them. But a decree was granted for one-third of Rs. 20,000 against defendant 1 who had not disputed her liability in either of the two Courts. From the decree of the appellate Court the plaintiff has brought this appeal against the two younger sisters (hereinafter to be described as the respondents), who alone had resisted his suit in the Courts below. The first point for determination is whether he can maintain the suit on the promissory note. The facts of the case relevant to the questions raised before their Lordships may be shortly stated. The defendants were the daughters of one Murugesa Mudaliar, who died in November 1916, without leaving any male issue. He owned a large and valuable estate, and soon after his death disputes regarding the partition of the estate arose between his widow on the one side and his collaterals on the other side. These disputes were referred to arbitration, and the widow stood in need of the services of a reliable person who could represent her before the arbitrators. She had a brother, Neela Kanta Mudaliar; and he consented, and was authorized to act on her behalf in the arbitration proceeding. He did not however prove to be either efficient or honest in the discharge of his duties; and after the death of the widow his services were dispensed with in March 1920.

(3.) It was at this stage that the plaintiff was asked by the defendants to take over the management of the estate and to carry on the proceedings before the arbitrators. He acceded to their request, and managed the estate, and acted as their agent in other affairs from March 1920, until the institution of the suit in January 1928. After he had worked for five years, he demanded his remuneration for the services performed by him, and the defendants, who had no money to pay at that time, executed the promissory note in question for Rs. 15,000. The note was admittedly signed by all the defendants, but the respondents sought to avoid their liability on various grounds. It is however unnecessary to mention here all the pleas advanced by them, because they were overruled by the trial Judge, and his decision has been endorsed by the Court of appeal, save in respect of the plea of undue influence. As regards the claim on the note the learned counsel for the parties have confined their arguments to this defence, and after considering the matter their Lordships are not prepared to dissent from the conclusion reached by the Court of appeal.