THAYAMMAL Vs. AMUTHUKUMARASWAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No. 132 of 1927.

(2.) In this appeal, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the appellants before us. The plaintiff brought the suit on a mortgage bond, dated the 24 October, 1907. The present suit was filed on the 17 October, 1925. To save the bar of limitation, the plaintiff relied on a payment of Rs. 10 towards interest on the 17 October, 1913, which purports to be endorsed on the mortgage bond and is exhibited as Ex. A-l. The Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit as framed, with further iuterest. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Exhibit A 1, the endorsement, was signed by the 1 defendant and the 2nd defendant for himself and as guardian of his younger brother, the 4 defendant. It is said that the 3rd defendant was then absent at Singapore and that the endorsement was signed on his behalf also.but there is no signature which purports to be on his behalf. So far as the 1 and 2nd defendants are concerned, the main point that was argued for the appellants was that though the signatures on the endorsement are ge nuine, the endorsement was interpolated after the signatures were made, that there was in fact no payment on the 17 October, 1913, and that what was represented to the defendants was that an endorsement will be made, consisting of the earlier payments, which were really made. Beyond the bare suggestion, there is nothing to support this contention of the defendants. The 1 and 2nd defendants have not gone into the box to support this contention. On the other hand, the plaintiff has gone into the box and has sworn to a payment of Rs. 10 on that date. This payment appears in the plaintiffs dsy book, Ex. D, at page 515. The actual entry was written by one Venkatachala Ohetty and his writing is proved by his son P.W. No. 2. This contention on behalf of the appellants Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, fails.