AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 219 wordsSadasiva Aiyar, J.—If, as is implied in the plaint, the two defendants were intended to be jointly liable for the plaint debt and were together
to execute the promissory note Ex. A, for that debt so as to make themselves jointly liable, and if the 1st defendant did not join in the execution (as
found by the Subordinate Judge) and only the 2nd defendant signed in it, even the 2nd defendant could not be made liable as he agreed to be liable
only if the 1st defendant was also jointly made liable (see Sivasami Chetti v. Sevugan Chetti ILR (1902) M. 389).
Further a material portion of the promissory note being a forgery, it seems to come within the principle of the decisions which hold that a
material alteration invalidates the whole note. I find that that principle has been so applied to a case where there seems to have been no alteration
after the note came into existence but the note was created in the first instance itself with a forged signature of a material character. (See C.R.P.
No. 601 of 1912 per Miller J.)
I, therefore accept this petition and modify the Lower Court''s Judgment by dismissing the suit against the 2nd defendant also. The 2nd
defendant will bear his own costs in both Courts.