The Chartered Bank Of India, Australia, And China, Ltd., V. Palaniappa Chetty Et Al.,

1917 Present: Ennis J. and Shaw J.

THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, AUSTRALIA, AND
CHINA, LTD., v. PALANIAPPA CHETTY et al.

501-D. C. Colombo, 45,463.

Chetty traders-Power of attorney by principal to agent-Agent signing his name with the principal vilasam prefixed.

Muttiah Chetty was the agent of the firm M. M. P. L., of which defendant was a partner. The power of attorney recited that the principals were carrying on business under the name, &c., of M. M. P. L., and authorized Muttiah Chetty "to act for and on behalf and in the name of us and each of us ..... and of our said firm or otherwise." In an action on a promissory note signed by Muttiah Chetty with the initials of the firm annexed (M. M. P. L. Muttiah Chetty)-

Held, that the defendant (principal) was liable.

SHAW J.-Muttiah Chetty having been authorised by the power of attorney to sign in the name of the firm, he has properly done so by prefixing the vilasam to his name, and that signature binds the firm on the note.

THE plaintiff bank sued the defendants on the following promissory note: -

       Rs. 16,000. ,                                                                                                                          Colombo, May 5, 1916.

On demand we, the undersigned, jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China, at their office in Colombo, the sum of Rs. 16,000 for value received.

(Signed in Tamil) Mayna Moona Pana Lana Muttiah Chetty.
Moona Pana Lana Palaniappa Chetty.

The material parts of the plaint were as follows:-

1. The defendants are traders carrying on business in Colombo under the name, style, firm, or vilasam of Mayna Moona Pana Lana.

2. By their promissory note dated May 5, 1916, herewith filed, marked A, and pleaded as part of this plaint, the defendants and one M. P. L. Palaniappa Chetty, at Colombo, within the jurisdiction of this Court, jointly and severally promised to pay to the plaintiff bank on demand the sum of Rs. 16,000 at the office of the plaintiff bank in Colombo.

3. The said note was signed by Muttiah Chetty, the said Muttiah Chetty being at the date of the said note the agent in Colombo of the defendant, and, according to the well-established custom among Chetty traders, the name of the said Muttiah Chetty, with the initials of the defendants' firm prefixed thereto, was signed as one of the makers of the said note, to indicate that the said note was made and granted by the defendants.

The plaintiffs relied on a power of attorney, the material portion of which is referred to in their Lordships' judgments. Five issues. were framed at the trial, the one material to the present judgment being as follows: -

3. Did Muttiah Chetty sign the said note in the name and form authorized by the power of attorney in his favour?

The learned District Judge (Mr. L. M. Maartensz) held as follows: -

The first defendant's contention on the third issue was that when a Chetty appointed an attorney by a written power of attorney, the
attorney could not bind his principal unless he adopted the form of signature laid down by the text books. In other words, a Chetty agent appointed by a written power of attorney could not bind his principal by signing his own name and prefixing to it the vilasam of his principal, which is the custom of the Chetties.

I am not prepared to accept this contention. The principle laid down that according to the custom of Chetties an agent may bind his principal by signing his own name with the vilasam of his principal prefixed thereto is not restricted to agents not appointed by a written power of attorney. I accordingly answer the third issue in the affirmative.

Judgment was entered against the first defendant as prayed for, and no order was made as regards the second defendant. The first defendant appealed against the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document