1. Whatever difficulty there may be in this case arises, in my opinion, not from any doubt or uncertainty as to the legal principles applicable to it but in the application of those principles to go complicated a thing as the type of signature in vogue among Nattukottai Chettis or Indeed at times among Nattukottai Chetty individuals.

2. The suit is brought on a promissory note dated 20th February 1918. The liability of the 1st defendant is sought to be enforced on two grounds; (1) That the signature to the note is on the face of it an unqualified assumption by him of personal liability; (2) That in any event, if the signature be held to be merely that of a firm, he was in fact a partner in that fir n or alternatively held himself out as being such. The 1st defendants name is Arunachellam Chetty and he is the son of a man called, A. Ponsivalai Chetty. There is no doubt that A. Ponsivalai Chetty entered into partnership with a firm trading under the vilasam of " V.M.A.C. and Sons " and that partnership unquestionably traded under the style of " V.M.A.C. and Sons and A.P. "-- See for example, Exhibit 1.

3. There is also no doubt that the partnership gave a power of attorney to A