AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 ILR (1901) M. 389 and Krishnama Chariar v. Narasimha Chariar ILR (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.
We, therefore, dismiss this second appeal with costs.