1. The suit was laid on a promissory note said to have been exemited by the two defendants. Defendant 1 admitted execution but pleaded that he was not liable on the note. Defendant 2 denied execution and the lower Court found that his signature was forged. A decree has been granted against defendant 1 and the present revision petition is filed against that decree. The general trend of decisions in this Court is that a decree cannot be given on a document which is found to be a forgery. The earliest case here is an unreported ruling of Miller, J., in C.R.P. No. 601 of 1912, where he followed Gour Chandra Das v. Prasanna Kumara (1906) 33 Cal. 812. This case was followed in Amirtham Pillai v. Nanjah Goundan 1914 Mad. 369 by Sadasiva Ayyar, J., and Wallace,. J., in Santhu Mohideen Pillai v. jamaluddin Lebbai 1928 Mad 1092 followed these two rulings and refused to follow the ruling of Devadoss, J., in Madam Pillai v. Athinarayana Pillai 1925 Mad, 929. There is one other reported case of this Court in favour of the respondent, T. Brahmayya v. Rami Reddi 1915 Mad 425. Some distinction was. attempted between some of these cases and the present by the fact that in some of these cases execution by one defendant was to be conditional on the execution by the defendant whose signature was. found a forgery. That does not however apply to C.R.P. No. 601 of 1912 where there was no such condition about execution. Also in Amirtham Pillai v. Nanjah Goundan 1914 Mad. 369, Sadasiva Ayyar, J., decided the question on-general principles as well as on the particular facts of the case. As to the argument founded on defendant 1's admitting execution, I am unable to see how from a legal point of view there is any difference between an execution which is admitted and an execution which is denied but found on the evidence to be true.
2. The English authorities are clear on the point Holman Et AI v. Johnson 98 ER 1120 and Scott v. Brown Deering Mc. Nab & Co. (1892) Q.B. 724. The principle upon which such suits are dismissed is not the interest of the party who is found to have executed the document but the interests of justice in general. They rest on the principle 'Ex turpi causa non oritur actio.' There is no reason that I can see why this principle should not be applied in India. If anything, I should consider it is even more needed here than in England. The revision petition, must be allowed and the suit be dismissed against defendant 1 also. Under the circumstances however I do not; award costs.