018-NLR-NLR-V-25-RAMANATHAN-CHETTY-v.-NATCHIYA-et-al.pdf
( 83 )
Present: De Sampayo A.C.J. and Porter J.
RAMANATHAN CHETTY v. NATCHIYA et al363—D. G. Galle, 19,488.
Principal and agent—Proxy signed by two attorneys of the principal—
Death of one attorney before trial■—Does proctor's authority cease ?—
Registration of Business Names—Contracts entered into before the
Ordinance came into force..
One of the two attorneys of the plaintiff who granted a proxy tothe plaintiff's proctor died before the date of trial.
Held, that the authority of the proctor was not thereby affected.The appointment by the attorneys continue to operate as long asthe principal (the party to the action for whom the proctor wasappointed) is alive ; the death of one of the attorneys has no effecton the act already done in the appointment of the proctor for theplaintiff.
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6 of 1918 (Registration of BusinessNames) does not. apply to contracts entered into before the Ordi-nance came into operation.
1923.
( 84 )
1923. HT'HE plaintiff P. R. M. Ramanathan Chetty sued the defendantsRamanathanon a mortgage bond for Rs. 3,500. The proxy in favour of
Chetty v.plaintiffs proctor was signed by two attorneys of the plaintiff.
Natchtya Thereafter one of the attorneys died. Theplaintiff had not registeredhis vilasani. The following issues, inter alia, were framed :—
Has the power of attorney given by the plaintiff to Adakappa
Chetty and Cassie Chetty lapsed by reason of the deathof the latter ?
Can the plaintiff maintain this action in view of his not having
complied with the requirements of Ordinance No. 6 of1918 ?
The District Judge dismissed plaintiff’s action. The plaintiffappealed.
Samaravnckreme, for appellant.
Soertsz, for respondents.
May 30, 1923. De Samvayo A.C.J.—
The plaintiff P. R. M. Ramanathan Chetty brought this actionon a mortgage bond granted on September 27, 1917. At the trialtwo legal objections were taken, and the District Judge upheldboth of them and dismissed the plaintiff’s action with costs. I donot think that either of the objections is sustainable, the first objec-tion is that so much of the name as consists of the initials indicatethat it was a business name, and required to be registered under theprovisions of the Ordinance No. 6 of 1918, and there having been noregistration the plaintiffs by reason of the provisions of section 9 ofthe Ordinance is not able to maintain this action. It would benoticed that the bond was granted to the plaintiff long before thepassing of the Ordinance itself, which came into operation on* November 7, 1918. In my opinion section 9 of the Ordinance doesnot apply to contracts entered into before the Ordinance came intooperation. This view is supported by the decision of JamelMohideen & Co. v. Meera Saibo.1
The other objection is that one of the two attorneys of the plaintiffwho had granted a proxy to the plaintiff’s proctor died before thedate of the trial, and for that reason the authority of the proctorceased. I am unable to hold that this result followed. When theproxy was granted the attorneys had full authority, and the proctorwas appointed pot as proctor for the attorneys, but as proctorof the plaintiff who is still alive. I think appointment by theattorneys must have continued to operate while the principal, theparty to the action for whom the proctor was appointed, is alive, and1 (1920) 22 N. L. It. 268.
( 85 )
that the death of one of the attorneys has no effect on the act alreadydone in the appointment of a proctor for the plaintiff. I think theDistrict Judge should have tried the action on the other issues inthe case and decided it after consideration of those issues.
I would set aside the judgment appealed from and send the caseback for trial in due course. Thb plaintiff is entitled to the costsof the discussion in the District Court and also of this appeal.
1923.
BamanathanCheUy v.Natckiya
Porter J.—I agree.
Set aside.