AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Wallace, J.—In this appeal the point argued is whether the plaintiff has adduced any evidence on which the lower Courts could conclude as
a finding of fact that there was necessity for the suit promissory notes which could in law render them binding on defendants who are not parties to
it. The promissory notes are executed by one Muthuswami Goundan, the elder brother of defendants 1 and 2 and the manager of their joint family,
and they are signed by him only in his personal capacity.
It is quite clear that this question of the promissory notes not being binding on the defendants was fully raised in the pleadings at the trial of the
suit and that the plaintiff was put to strict proof of such necessity. The lower Courts have found that such necessity existed chiefly on the general
ground that the executant was the manager of the joint family and was contracting other debts about this time for the joint family. But that is not
sufficient, since there is no presumption in law that a document signed in his personal capacity by one who is the manager, of a joint Hindu family is
signed by him as such manager. It was essential for the plaintiff to prove that there was necessity for these loans now sought to be repaid under the
suit promissory notes.
I find that there is some oral evidence that there was family necessity for the suit loans; but the lower appellate Court, while holding that the oral
evidence is not ""such as to be of any Teal value,"" whatever that may mean, apparently concludes extraneously, viz., on the documentary evidence
that there was such necessity, though it does not say so; for it finds that the suit debt is binding on defendants. This is an unsatisfactory method of
coming to its conclusion and I am unable to discover what were the real conclusions on the evidence, to which the lower Court came, before it set
out its finding.
I consider it necessary to have a proper judgment written by the lower appellate Court.
It has been argued before me that the suit is, in any event, not maintainable, since it is founded on the promissory notes and not on the debts and
the Full Bench ruling in P. Govindan Nair Vs. K. Nana Menon, , is relied on. But I think the plaint is sufficient to cover a claim on the debts also
and that the case is very similar to a Full Bench case in Krishna Aiyar v. Krishnaswami Aiyar [1900] 23 Mad. 597. I overrule this objection.
I reverse the lower appellate Court''s judgment and decree and direct the lower appellate Court to readmit and re-hear the Appeal. Costs up to
date will abide the result.