Skip to content


Sabapathy Mudaliar Vs. Manikkammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad447
AppellantSabapathy Mudaliar
RespondentManikkammal
Cases ReferredAmmalu Ammal v. Namagiri Ammal
Excerpt:
- .....accept the guardian's personal responsibility instead of having recourse against the estate.2. reference has been made to padma krishna chettiar v. nagamani ammal [1915] 39 mad. 915, but as pointed out by wallis, c.j., in palaniappa chettiar v. shanmugam chettiar [1919] 41 mad. 815 the case does not decide that the executant who was the mother was not personally liable.3. i have in ammalu ammal v. namagiri ammal [1918] 33 m.l.j. 631 held that a person executing a negotiable instrument will be personally liable unless there is a clear indication in the document that he does not intend to incur personal liability but limits the recourse of the payee or holder to the person whom or the estate which he represents as trustee, executor, guardian or agent.4. in the present case i see no such.....
Judgment:

Kumarswami Sastri, J.

1. I think the decree of the Mnnsif is correct. The promissory note after reciting that the executant was the guardian of the minor and that Rs. 125 was due by the father of the minor proceeds as follows : 'I shall pay these Rs. 115 to you or order, on demand, with interest at 1 per cent per mensem. I execute the promissory-note in these terms with my consent.' It is signed by the defendant without any qualification or description. It is difficult to see how I can in the face of the express personal promise to pay and the unqualified way in which the note is signed hold that the defendant is not liable on the note. It is open to the guardian to undertake to pay personally a debt due by the estate and there is no want of consideration if (creditor agrees to accept the guardian's personal responsibility instead of having recourse against the estate.

2. Reference has been made to Padma Krishna Chettiar v. Nagamani Ammal [1915] 39 Mad. 915, but as pointed out by Wallis, C.J., in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Shanmugam Chettiar [1919] 41 Mad. 815 the case does not decide that the executant who was the mother was not personally liable.

3. I have in Ammalu Ammal v. Namagiri Ammal [1918] 33 M.L.J. 631 held that a person executing a negotiable instrument will be personally liable unless there is a clear indication in the document that he does not intend to incur personal liability but limits the recourse of the payee or holder to the person whom or the estate which he represents as trustee, executor, guardian or agent.

4. In the present case I see no such limitation.

5. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.


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