1. We are asked in this application to revise the judgment of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Negapatam in a Small Cause Suit instituted by the endorsee of a negotiable promissory note against the maker. The note was executed by the latter in favor of Chella Muppannar, Avergal, Agent of P.S. Picha Muppannar, Avergal. The endorsement in favor of the plaintiff is signed merely ' Chella Muppannar'. The defendant contended that the note was executed in favor of Chella Muppannar in his character as agent of Picha Muppannar and that the endorsement by him in his individual capacity and not as agent of Picha Muppannar would not entitle the plaintiff to maintain the suit. The Subordinate Judge upheld this contention. He construed the note as one executed in favor of Chefla Muppannar as agent of Picha Muppannar, that is really in favor of Picha Muppannar.
2. The question we have to decide is whether his construction is right. The argument before us is that the description is not conclusive to show that the note was made in favor of Chella Muppannar as agent of another person. This contention may be right but the learned Vakil for the Petitioner is unable to say that his client wished to tender any evidence to show that Chella Muppannar was the beneficial owner of the promissory note. We are not prepared to say, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the Subordinate Judge was not justified in construing the note in the manner he did. It has no doubt been held in some English cases that a person who makes a note signing it as ' director of a company' would not by that fact alone exclude his own personal liability and that even the affixing of the seal of the company in a corner of the not? would not be sufficient to exclude his personal liability. Having regard to the habits of the people in this country we are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge was justified in inferring that the description of Chella Muppannar as ' agent of Picha Muppannar' was intended to denote the character in which the note was executed in his favor. The case in Mathar Sahib Maraikayar v. Kadir Sahib Maraikayar I.L.R. (1905) M. 544 only shows that parol evidence may be admitted to exclude such a construction. No case has been cited which lays down that the prima facie inference in such a case must be taken to be that the note was executed for the benefit of the person described as agent of another. We dismiss the petition with costs.