Executors and guardians are personally liable on promissory notes executed by them, unless their liability is excluded as provided in Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Krishnan, J.

1. These are three Second Appeals arising from three suits brought by three plaintiffs on promissory notes executed to them respectively by defendants 2 and 3. The cases being similar in their facts they have been dealt with in one judgment by the lower Courts and it will be convenient to do so in Second Appeal as well.

2. One Viranna died leaving debts due to these plaintiffs among others. The 1st defendant is his minor son and was his undivided coparcener. The property belonging to Viranna is found to have been all joint family property. He nevertheless executed a will before his death and named defendants 2 and 3 as the executors of it; he authorised them to take possession of the properties on behalf of his minor son and manage them and collect out-standings and pay the necessary education and maintenance expenses with his mothers consent and hand over the properties and accounts to the minor on his attaining majority. Defendants 2 and 3 entered upon the management under this will, though it is clear that the document is invalid in law as a will in so far as it purported to deal with the joint family property. Plaintiffs as creditors of Viranna pressed defendants 2 and 3 for the payment of their dues. Defendants 2 and 3 asked them for time and executed the suit promissory notes themselves in renewal of promissory notes of the testator. In these suits plaintiffs claimed decrees against defendants 2 and 3 personally as the makers of the notes and against the estate of the 1st defendant. The District Munsif gave them a decree against defendants 2 and 3 personally and dismissed the suits against the minors estate. Thereupon both the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 appealed to the Subordinate Judge who gave decrees against the estate of the minor but dismissed the suit against defendants 2 and 3. The minor has not appealed, but plaintiffs have brought these Second Appeals claiming personal decrees against defendants 2 and 3.

3. The question for decision is whether defendants 2 and 3 are personally liable under the notes. It will be convenient now to refer to the promissory notes in the three cases, separately as there is some difference in their language. Taking S.A. No. 998 first, the note Exhibit A though it gets out in the preamble that it is executed by Subbanna and Satyanarayana (who ate defendants 2 and 3) as executors of the will of Viranna, it says in the body of the note: "On demand we promise to pay to you or to your order, etc." and it is signed by defendants 2 and 3 without any qualification being added to their signatures. It seems to me clear on the language of the note that defendants have made themselves personally liable for the amount due. When a note is executed by any person he is personally liable on it unless it is clear that such a liability is excluded. The document no doubt speaks of the defendants as executors of Virannas will. But the will, being invalid they had really no such capacity but even if it is to be assumed that the defendants executed Exhibit A only as the executors of Virannas will, plaintiffs are still entitled to a personal decree as executors are personally liable on notes executed by them as such even though they may be acting for the benefit of the testators estate in doing so, unless their liability is excluded in the manner provided in Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is clear law that an executor is personally liable. See Chidambaram Pillai v. Veerappa Chettiar (1917) 22 M.L.T. 380, Sudhir Chandra Das v. Gobinda Chandra Roy (1917) 45 Cal. 538, and Ferhall v. Ferhall (1871) 7 Ch. 123. It was argued that as Exhibit A was executed not for money borrowed by the executors themselves but for money already due by the testator the liability fell only on the estate Whether recourse can be had to the estate or not in those circumstances, a point I need not consider, the liability of the executants of the note, it seems to me, remains. The suit note was ex