THANGATHAMMAL Vs. VAARARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Appeal No. 80 of 1917 at the hearing of this appeal, two contentions were raised: (1) that the varthamanam or guarantee (Exhibit M) alleged to have been written by fifth defendant s husband Audinarayana Pillai was not genuine: (2) that owing to the nature of the transaction which Exhibit M evidenced, the heirs of the guarantor are not liable under Hindu Law.

(2.) On the first point, we do not find the least reason to doubt the correctness of the learned Subordinate Judge s finding of fact. The circumstance that, during Audinarayana s lifetime a notice of demand setting out his liability under the varthamanam was sent to him and he did not repudiate his liability, tells strongly against the present theory that it is a forgery. It was again mentioned in the subsequent promissory note (Exhibit Q) in a sentence which may have been written after the stamp was affixed but not necessarily after Audinarayana had signed across the stamp.

(3.) The attempts made to prove an alibi for the first defendant on the day when Exhibit M was executed by means of certain post cards do not in our opinion in the least detract from the genuineness of that document.