The main legal point established in the judgment is that the effectiveness of a document executed by some but not all intended parties depends on the intention of the parties, as supported by legal principles from Latch v. Wedlake and Underhill v. Horuood.

1. Plaintiff sues on a hypothecation bond, Exhibit J, dated 31st October 1897, purporting to be made between the plaintiff on the one part and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants as well as one Pothu Chetty, now deceased, on the other part, and to be executed by the 1st defendant for himself and for the 2nd defendant, his minor son. The 3rd defendant and the deceased Pothu Chetty are as described in Exhibit J, the younger brothers of the 1st defendant. Exhibit J recites that the 1st and 3rd defendants and Pothu Chetty execute the document on their behalf respectively and the 1st defendant also on behalf of the 2nd defendant a minor.

2. The 1st defendant on behalf of himself and the 2nd defendant denied the execution by him of the hypothecation bond, and also contended that no suit could be brought upon the bond apparently on the ground that it was not completed. The 3rd defendant also denied the genuineness of Exhibit J, and contended that the loans recited in Exhibit J were not contracted for his benefit, and that even if Exhibit J were genuine, he was not liable to be sued thereon inasmuch as the 1st defendant did not execute the same on his behalf, or of the deceased Pothu Chetty, and that no suit could be brought on Exhibit J, as it was not completed, and neither ho nor the deceased Pothu Chetty executed or agreed to execute the same. Both the 1st and 3rd defendants also alleged in their written statements that the 1st defendant was not the managing member of the family.

3. The Subordinate Judge found the Exhibit J to be genuine, and that the consideration therein recited was real and binding upon the family, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendants 1, 2, 3 and the property hypothecated under Exhibit J.

4. Against this decree defendants 1, 2 and 3 have preferred Appeal No. 102 of 1900; and it is contended on their behalf that Exhibit J is not genuine, that a portion of the consideration for Exhibit J is not real, and that Exhibit J not having been completed, it cannot bind either the defendants 1, 2 and 3 jointly or any one of them.

5. I concur with the Subordinate Judge in holding that Exhibit J was signed by the 1st defendant and that the consideration for the mortgage bond, i.e., Rs. 5,470-0-0, was real and such as would bind the family. Negotiations were going on for some time between the defendants and the plaintiff in view to the plaintiff advancing a further loan and obtaining a mortgage bond for Rs. 10,000 from the defendants hypothecating all their property. Owing apparently to disagreement as to rate of interest the negotiations fell through; but the plaintiff being anxious to obtain security for the various sums advanced by him on pro-notes mainly to the 1st defendant and partly to the 3rd defendant, and the 1st defendant too being desirous that the debts thus contracted by him should be undertaken by his brothers also, it was arranged between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant that Exhibit J should be executed by all the members of the family, which at that time was in an embarrassed state of circumstances. But as the remaining members of the family declined to sign Exhibit J, after it was signed by the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant refused to register the document so far as he was concerned by falsely denying its execution by him. The Distinct Registrar after being satisfied that was executed by the 1st defendant directed its registration. I am satisfied upon the evidence in the case, that Exhibit J was executed by the 1st defendant, and no ground has been made out for allowing the 1st defendant to re-open the settlement of accounts embodied in Exhibit J. But in my opinion, the appellants contention that Exhibit J was intended both by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to be executed by all the members of the family, and that it was not intended that the 1st defendant alone by signing it was to bind himself or in his capacity as managing member bind the whole family, is well found