1. This case is on all fours with Veeraiyan Chettiar v. Ponnusami Chettiar (1911) 35 Mad. 362 and is a stronger case than Sowcar Lodd Govindadoss v. Muniappa Naidu (1908) 31 Mad. 534 the remarks in which also support the view of the Court below. It is true that Lodd Govindadoss v. Muniappa Naidu (1908) 31 Mad. 534 was disapproved in Ulagappa Chetty v. Ramanathan Chetty (1916) 3 L.W. 171 but this latter decision was reversed in Letters Patent Appeal in Ramanadhan Chetty v. Katha Velan (1917) 41 Mad. 353. In Reoti Lal v. Manna Kunwar A.I.R. 1922 All. 70 the principal's name was not disclosed. The passage from Dicey's Parties to an Action, page 134 (1870 Edition) apparently deals with a similar case the only authority mentioned being Leake on Contracts, p. 302. The view we are adopting is in accordance with Daniel's Negotiable Instruments, Section 1187 latter part. There is no section about payee like Section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in respect of maker and the general principles of the Law of Agency apply. The principal is disclosed in this case.
2. It is open to the defendant to prove that, at the time of the execution of the note, Ramaswamy Naidu was not an agent of plaintiff and did not take the note for the plaintiff. It is also open to the defendant to prove payment to Ramaswamy Naidu. The Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the suit is maintainable and the appeal is dismissed with costs.