Aiyathurai Aiyar v. Dharmasiva Iyer

JUDGMENT

V. Krishnaswamy Iyer, J.

1. The suit is on a pro-note. The 1st defendant was managing a temple under the power of authority given to him by the 2nd defendant's guardian, the 2nd defendant being the trustee of the temple. I read Subordinate Judge's judgment to mean that neither the 2nd defendant nor the temple is liable for the claim on the pro-note. The 1st defendant had no authority under the power of authority to borrow any monies for the temple, and, therefore, he is not entitled to make the temple property liable for a debt borrowed by him from the plaintiff. But I think the Subordinate Judge is wrong as regards the claim against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is the executant of the pro-note. He has not signed the pro-note as agent on behalf of any body else. The description of the 1st defendant in the body of the pro-note as honorary manager, is not an indication, on the face of the pro-note, that he does not make himself liable. The Vakil for the 1st defendant relied on Alexander v. Sizen L.R. 4 Ex. 102. I think that case has no application. There the maker of the note signed his name as Secretary, and the question was whether he made himself personally liable or the bank, whose Secretary he was, was also intended to be made liable. No such question arises here, where the 1st defendant has signed his name only. I would, therefore, set aside the Subordinate Judge's decree as far as the 1st defendant is concerned and decree the plaintiff's claim as against him as prayed for with costs in this and in the lower Court. I dismiss the petition as against the 2nd defendant with costs.