The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the signature on the promissory note and the application of the Presidency Insolvency Act, Section 45(4) to determine the liability of the 1st defendant.

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 Arunachellam to act as agent for the partnenhip- Exhibit 6. If, therefore, he signed the promissory note with the partnership signature and merely added his own name, the inference would be irresistible that the operative signature was that of the firm and that he merely added his own name as agent. It is true that he added no qualificatory words such as " agent " or by or per pro , but documents in that form are executed by Nattukottai agents every day and are universally understood to be the firms signature merely vouched as such by the agent who adds his own name. The learned Judge took that view and held that the signature should read as if it were written, " V.M.A.C. and Sons and A.P." (firms signature) Arunachellam Chetty (Agents signature). The appellants ease is that the signature should be read entirely differently thus:

V.M.A.C. & Sons (one signature) and A.P. Arunachellam Chetty (another signature).

4. In plain English, does the A.P. attach itself to what precedes or what follows? To my mind, the " and " (which is not written in Tamil, but in the ordinary English abbreviation " & " clearly links up the A.P. with what precedes, and I therefore agree with the learned Judge that the signature on the face of it makes the partnership firm of "V.M.A.C. and Sons and A.P. " liable, and excluded the personal liability of Arunachellam.

5. I am not sure how far I am entitled to look outside the signature itself to construe it, but as both sides have invited us to do so, I will briefly state that conclusions I would be prepared to draw from the only two sources that appear to me to be in any conceivable way relevant. The first is the words used in the body of the note itself sued upon. It is unfortunate that the Tamil has clearly been mistranslated, but that does not really affect the present question, because the note contains the clearest possible recital that the debtors are the firm trading under the style of "V.M.A. Chinnappa Chetty and Sons and A. Ponsivalai Chetty". If I am at liberty to look at Exhibit B the result is the same. That is dated the 11th February 1918 and was the formal application for the very loan in respect of which the suit promissory, note was executed. It is signed in practically the same way: "V.M.A.C. and A.P. Arunachellam Chetty ".But the heading is unequivocal, "V.M.A. Chinnappa Chettiar. A. Ponsivalai Chetty, writes"-"a clear intimation that the application for the loan was for a loan to the firm of "V.M.A.C. and Sons and A.P. "

6. The whole difficulty has arisen from the fact that Arunachellam at times put his fathers initials in front of his own name when he undoubtedly meant to be signing for himself and nobody else. See for example, his affidavit in the subsequent insolvency proceedings, Exhibit IV. That, it seems to