PETTACHI CHETTY v. MOHAMADO YUSOOF.

PETTACHI CHETTY v. MOHAMADO YUSOOF.

D. C, Colombo, No. 82,535*

Principal and agent-Mercantile custom of Natukotta Chetties-Action by principals on bond granted to their agent-Meaning of " Pe. le. Venaitirtan Chetty."

It is the custom among the Natukotta Chetties of South India who carry on trade in Ceylon to describe themselves by the names of the individuals who constitute the firm, and to prefix to each name the initial letters of the firm. Their agents, when signing for their principals, usually sign their own names, prefixing to them the initial letters of the firm for which they act. If an agent signs on his own account, he signs his own name and prefixes to it the initial letters of his own patronymic.

One Nu. Vu. Muttiah Chetty, having been appointed the agent of Pe. Le. Pettachi Chetty, Pe. Le. Periannan Chetty, Pe. Le. Sinnaiya Chetty, and Pe. Le. Narayanan Chetty of South India, came to Colombo and carried on their business, signing himself " Pe. Le. Muttiah Chetty."

Defendant, having had monetary dealings with Pe. Le. Muttiah Chetty, was informed by him that he was going to India, and that his principals would send out another agent.

Mu. A. Bu. Venaitirtan Chetty was appointed such agent, and when he arrived in Colombo defendant signed a bond in favour of "Pe. Le. Venaitirtan Chetty," and received several loans from him amounting to over Rs. 40,000.

Venaitirtan died at Colombo, and Muttiah, re-assuming the management of the firm of Pe. Le., put the bond given to Pe. Le. Venaitirtan Chetty in suit. He brought the suit in the name of the four principals who constituted the firm of Pe. Le.

Held, that the bond in question was not granted by the defendant to Venaitirtan Chetty in his private capacity, but to the firm of Pe. Le.

THIS was an appeal preferred by the defendant against a judgment condemning him to pay to the plaintiffs, Pe. Le. Pettachi Chetty, Pe. Le. Periannan Chetty, Pe. Le. Sinnaiya Chetty.

* Reported at the request of Mr. Browne, D.J. of Colombo.-Ed.

and Pe. Le. Narayanan Chetty, who were carrying on business in Colombo and other places under the name and style of " Pe. Le., " certain sums of money due upon certain promissory notes payable in terms of a bond which the defendant had signed in favour of one Pe. Le. Venaitirtan Chetty.

The facts in detail appear in the judgments given below.

The case came on for argument before De Wet, A.C.J., Clarence, J., and Bias, J., on the 13th March, 1883.

Van Langenberg (with him Brito and Dornhorst), for defendant, appellant.

Grenier (with him Seneviratne), for plaintiffs, respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

19th April, 1883. De Wet, A.C.J.-

This is an action upon a bond dated 19th December, 1878, whereby the defendant bound himself to retire or pay at maturity such promissory notes as should be discounted by plaintiffs under the terms and provisions of the bond.. For the due payment of the notes so discounted certain properties mentioned in the bond were hypothecated. The plaintiffs now sue for the amount due upon the bond and for a decree declaring the property hypothecated executable.

The defendant admits the due execution of the bond, but alleges that the bond was executed by him in favour of Pe. Le. P. Chetty in his private capacity,. and not as agent of the plaintiffs, and denies " that there is due and owing from defendant to plaintiffs the sum claimed in the libel. "

From the evidence adduced in the case it appears that, at a time anterior to the execution of the bond in question, the plaintiffs had traded together in rice and money-lending under the style and firm of " Pe. Le. " at Colombo, Jaffna, Arracan, and other places; and that while so trading one Muttiah acted as their agent in Colombo from 1875 to 1878. During this time he had certain money transactions with the defendant, and it is quite clear that in their money transactions defendant was well aware that Muttiah was acting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document