DOMATY NURSIAH Vs. S. R. M. RAMEN CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Domaty Nursiah and the respondents, S.R.M. Ramen Chetty and S.N.A. Soobramonien Chetty, who carried on the business of bankers and money lenders in Rangoon, under the firm's name or mark S.R.M., their agent in Rangoon being the respondent V.E.A.T. Vyraven Chetty, on the 28th January 1892, jointly advanced the sum of Rs. 30,000 to Cadelly Morady (who has since deceased) and one Domaty Moothaloo. Of that sum Rs. 15,000, or one-half, was contributed by the appellant, and the other half by the firm of the said two respondents, who were his co-adventurers. In order to cover the advance, the borrowers, on the same date, granted to the said respondents, with the consent of the appellant, their promissory note for Rs. 30,000, payable on demand, with interest. In security for the due repayment of principal and interest Cadelly Morady transferred six cargo boats, with their licenses to the respondents' firm, and four cargo boats with their licenses to T.R.M. Seethumbram Chetty, with the knowledge and consent of the appellant. In further security Cadelly Morady deposited with the appellant, on the joint account of himself and his co-creditors, the title deeds of his half share of a house and land in 38th Street Rangoon, known as the southern half of 3rd Class Lot 16 in Block Fl.

(2.) CADELLY Morady died intestate in the month of February 1892. Thereafter, in the month of November 1892, Cadelly Ramasawmi applied for and obtained from the Court of the Recorder of Rangoon letters of administration to his estate and effects.

(3.) IT appears from a decision, or award, dated 22nd January 1895, by four persons who acted as arbiters, that they had been applied to by Vyraven Chetty on the 13th day of December 1894, who submitted to them certain accounts, documents, and statements connected with the advance made to Cadelly Morady in January 1892. Vyraven Chetty made the application "under power of attorney from S.R.M. and Korangi Domaty Nursiah of Rangoon;" and it is obvious from the tenor of their decision that the arbiters understood that it was their duty to settle questions arising between Nursiah and the Rangoon firm, of which the respondents Ramen Chetty and Soobramonien Chetty were the members.