Skip to content


Bangarasami Aiyangar Vs. A.R.A.A.R.S.M. Somasundaram Chettiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1914)27MLJ176
AppellantBangarasami Aiyangar
RespondentA.R.A.A.R.S.M. Somasundaram Chettiar and ors.
Cases Referred and Krishnama Chariar v. Narasimha Chariar I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - we are not satisfied that the subordinate judge has misconstrued the documentary evidence in any material particular......that it was executed by a, b and c is executed by a and b alone, whether in such a case, a and b agreed to be liable under it only if c also joined in executing it is a question of fact to be decided on the circumstances of each particular case sivasami chetty v. sevagan chetti i.l.r. (1901) m. 389 and krishnama chariar v. narasimha chariar i.l.r. (1908) m. 114. in this particular case, the lower appellate court has after considering the circumstances and probabilities arrived at the conclusion that the 1st defendant (the appellant before us) agreed to be liable under exhibit a notwithstanding that one desika chariar mentioned in the recital as a co-executant did not sign it. though it must be admitted that the judgment is not quite satisfactory, we cannot say that there is no evidence.....
Judgment:

1. The question whether when a document which recites that it was executed by A, B and C is executed by A and B alone, whether in such a case, A and B agreed to be liable under it only if C also joined in executing it is a question of fact to be decided on the circumstances of each particular case Sivasami Chetty v. Sevagan Chetti I.L.R. (1901) M. 389 and Krishnama Chariar v. Narasimha Chariar I.L.R. (1908) M. 114. In this particular case, the Lower Appellate Court has after considering the circumstances and probabilities arrived at the conclusion that the 1st defendant (the appellant before us) agreed to be liable under Exhibit A notwithstanding that one Desika Chariar mentioned in the recital as a co-executant did not sign it. Though it must be admitted that the Judgment is not quite satisfactory, we cannot say that there is no evidence on which the Lower Appellate Court could have arrived at the conclusion at which it arrived. The plaintiffs 1st witness says that he made a demand on the 1st defendant for money due under the particular pronote and the 1st defendant promised to pay up sum, thus impliedly admitting that his liability under it was not made conditional on Desikachariar's joining in its execution. We are not satisfied that the Subordinate Judge has misconstrued the documentary evidence in any material particular.

2. We, therefore, dismiss this second appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //