1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale of mortgaged property. Nand Dularey Lal borrowed Rs. 3.200 from the plaintiffs OH the 27th of January, 1895, on the security of a bond which was executed nominally in favour of the wives of the three plaintiffs. For realization of the amount due on this security the suit was brought. The bond was executed on behalf of Nand Dularey Lal under a power-of attorney, dated the 26th of November, 1894. By this power-of-attorney Nand Dularey Lal appointed his brothers Raj Dularey, Madan Behari Lal and Bans Gopal his agents and authorised them to borrow money, sign and execute bonds in his name, hypothecate his property and get bonds registered. The bond in suit was signed by Raj Dularey Lal on behalf of Nand Dularey Lal as his attorney and was attested by Bans Gopal and Madan Behari Lal. The principal defence set up by Nand Dularey Lal was that Raj Dularey Lal was not alone authorised to execute the bond on his behalf and that the bond was not therefore binding on him.
2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the execution of the bond in the manner described was in compliance with the provisions of the power-of-attorney, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.
3. This appeal was then preferred and the only ground of appeal which has been pressed in argument before us is that the document sued on was not executed in accordance with the authority given to the agents and therefore is not binding upon the appellants.
4. It has been proved that Nand Dularey and his brothers, who were appointed his agents, were indebted to Musammat Choti Bibi and Kewal Kishan and that the three brothers of Nand Dularey Lal had also borrowed money from the same creditors. Three-fourths of the debts due to those creditors had been satisfied and it was to pay off the remaining one-fourth that the power-of-attorney was executed to enable the agents to raise a loan. The bond in dispute was attested not merely by the three brothers of Nand Dularey Lal but also by his uncle and his nephew and another member of the family. It appears that the bonds which were executed by the brothers and agents of Nand Dularey Lal were registered on the same day on which the bond in suit was registered, and the power-of-attorney was also registered on the same day and it is clear as the learned Subordinate Judge has found that everything was done with the full consent and knowledge of all the four brothers.
5. The contention on behalf of the appellants' is that as the power-of-attorney was not joint and several but a joint authority only, it was necessary that the three agents should sign the name of Nand Dularey Lal. We are unable to agree in this contention. No doubt where an authority is given to two or more persons jointly, all the co-agents must concur in the execution of it in order to bind the principal in the absence of a provision that some alone shall form a quorum. But it appears to us that in the case of an authority given in the terms in which the authority in this case was framed, if all the co-agents acting under it concur in the execution of it as they clearly did in this case, one of the agents with the consent of the others writing the name of the principal and the others attesting the execution, the requirements of law are satisfied. It was as the learned Subordinate Judge observed impossible for them (the co-agents) to sign the name of the defendant jointly.' Three persons cannot jointly sign a name. The defence raised is highly technical and devoid of all merits. We agree in the view taken by the Court below and dismiss the appeal with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.