047-NLR-NLR-V-21-MENIKRALA-v.-SEERALA.pdf
( 151 )
Present: Schneider A.J.
MENIKRALA v. SEERALA.
38—C. B. Anuradhapura, 9,619.
Promissory note—Signature over a stamp on the top.
Where a maker of a promissory note signed over the stamp atthe top of the note, and there was clear indication that he meant
that to be his signature to the note,—
Held, that the note was duly signed.
1 ^ K facts appear from the judgment.
H. V. Perera, for plaintiff, appellant.—The case of Mohamadu v.Rowter,1 which the Commissioner purported to follow, was reallydecided on the ground that the genuineness of the maker’s signaturehad not been established.
The law does not require the maker of a promissory note to puthis signature on any particular part of the document. The Billsof Exchange Act merely requires that the note should be signed bythe maker (section 83 (1)). Whether a note is signed or not is aquestion of fact. Where the maker’s signature appears on any partof the document, the question is whether he intended to vouch hispromise by such signature (Perera v. Amolis2). In the presentcase the intention is clear on the face of the document.
June 4, 1919. Schneider A.J.—
This is an action founded upon an instrument which runs asfollows:—
“ Dated the 10th of May, 1916. The purport of the promissorynote caused to be written and granted by W. Seerala is as follows,to wit: Having received from M. Gamarala the sum of fifty rupees,and having promised to pay unto the said creditor or his heirs onproduction of this note and on demand by me or my heirs the saidsum, together with interest thereon at the rate of twenty-five centsper ten rupees per month, and thus promising and having receivedthe sum of fifty rupees in the presence of the under-mentionedwitnesses, I set my usual signature on two five-cent stamps andgranted the same.
“ Witnesses to this: Kandate, Vel-Vidane, and Appurala. ”
The two witnesses have signed at the bottom. Below the signa-ture of the witness are the following words: " Written by Appurala.Vel-Vidane of Punchi Hal Numillowa.
1 (1913) 16 N. L. B. 301.1 (1913) Wijeieardene’s Reports 6.
21/15
1019.
1919.
SoENBn)BB
A.J.
Menikralav. Seerala
( 152 )
On the top are two five-cent stamps which bear the mark ofSeerala The learned Commissioner, upon evidence adduced beforehim, states that he has no hesitation in declaring that the plaintiffactually lent the sum, but holds that defendant did not sign thedocument in question, on the ground that the signature of themaker was on the top of the document and not at the bottom. Hedismissed the plaintiff’s action. He says that he is obliged to followthe decision reported in 16 N. L. R. 301 and also the decisionreported in 4 Balaaingham 140. I think the learned Commis-sioner has misunderstood those decisions. The decision which he -refers to as reported at page 301 of volume XVI. of the New LawReports is the case of Mohamadu. v. Rowter.
In that case Pereira J., in the course of his judgment, says: “ Itwould appear that the signature was intended for the cancellationof the stamp, and nothing more, ” and he decided the case uponthe footing that there was' no evidence that the signature was thatof the person who impeached it. In this case there is clear indicationthat the person who put his signature on the stamps at the top- of thedocument meant that to .be his signature to a promissory note iorEs. 50, because he expressly states so in the body of the document.The case which the learned Commissioner refers to as reported in4 Balasingham 141 is considered and commented on in Perera v.Antolis1. If the learned Commissioner had been • directed to thiscase, his decision might have been other than it has been. As WoodBenton C.J. points out in that case:“ The general rule of law, as
Withers J. pointed out in the case of Maythin v. David Sinno,*• isthat, if a man intends by his signature to vouch the promise embodiedin a promissory note, and to give effect to it, it means little onwhat part of the paper containing the engagement the signaturehas been placed. ”
Looking at the document in this case there can be no doubt thatthe defendant in placing his signature at the bottom of the documentintended that signature to be his signature to a promissory note interms of the document.
I therefore set aside the decree appealed from, and order judgmentfor plaintiff as prayed for, with costs. The costs to be fixed by theCommissioner.
The plaintiff will also have the costs of this appeal.
Set aside.
> {1913) Wijewardene'e Reports 6.
* (1397) 4 Bal. 141.