1961 Present : Sansoni, J., and L. B. de Silva, J.

P. C. MEYAPPAN and others, Appellants, and K. S. MANCHANAYAKE,
Respondent

S. C. 315 - D. C. Colombo, 36277/M

Cheques-Partnership-Signature by rubber stamp-Validity-Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap. 68), ss. 2, 23, 92 (1)-Evidence Ordinance, s. 67--Civil Procedure Code, ss. 5, 155 et seq.-Interpretation Ordinance (Cap. 2), 8. 2 (q).

When a cheque is required to be signed by a partnership, the affixing of a rubber stamp which merely bears the name of the firm is not a valid signature unless there is added to the name so stamped a signature of a person verifying the so-called signature to show that it was placed there with the authority of the firm.

The 2nd. 3rd and 4th defendants were partners carrying on business in the name of Nirchalananthan Co. Four cheques drawn bv the 1st defendant payable to bearer were indorsed with a rubber stamp which merely bore t-le name NirchaJananthan Co. This name was indorsed with a rubber Stamp on the back of each cheque by the cashier of the firm, on the instructions of the 2nd defendant, before the cheques were delivered to the plaintiff by the 2nd defendant.

Held, that the mere stamping of the firm's name was not a sufficient signature within the meaning of section 92 (1) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance for the purpose of rendering the firm liable as indorsers.

" If the signature of a partnership is required, one of the partners should write the name of his firm with his own hand, or it should be written by hand by a duly authorised agent. A so-called signing by stamping the name of the firm without anything to verify it, as in the present case, is no signing at all. "

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.

H. W. Jayewardene, Q. C., with M. Markhani, N. R. M. Daluwatte and D. S. Wijewardene, for 2nd and 3rd Defendants-Appellants.

C. Ranganathan, with M. Shanmugalingam and K. Palakidnar, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

March 10, 1961. SANSONI, J.

This is an appeal by the 2nd and 3rd defendants who, with the 4th defendant, are partners carrying on business in the name of Nirchalananthan Co. Judgment was entered against them on four cheques which were drawn by the 1st defendant payable to bearer and

endorsed with a rubber stamp which bore the name Nirchalananthan Co. This name was stamped on the back of each cheque by the cashier of the firm, on the instructions of the 2nd defendant, before the cheques were given to the plaintiff. The question for decision is whether the 2nd and 3rd defendants as partners are liable on these cheques.

The learned District Judge considered that Section 92 (1) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance Cap. 68 had not boon complied with, as the stamping of the firm's name was not a signature within the meaning of that section. But he held that the 2nd and 3rd defendants were, nevertheless, liable because the cheques had been delivered to the plaintiff by the 2nd defendant. The latter finding has not, quite correctly, been supported by counsel for the plaintiff in view of section 23 which provides that no person is liable as drawer, endorser or acceptor of a bill who has not signed it as such. The only question for decision now is whether the learned Judge was correct when he held that the mere stamping of the firm's name is not a sufficient signature for the purposes of rendering the firm liable.

Mr. Jayewardene for the appellants relied strongly on section 67 of the Evidence Ordinance which reads: "If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting." He argued that under this section a document cannot be said to be signed unless the signature is written by hand. He also relied on section 155 and other sections in