- (1.) THIS is a revision application on behalf of the defendants against the order of the Civil Judge, Nagaur dated the 3 7th of September, 1953 by which he decided that the document on which the suit of the plaintiff opposite party was based was not a promissory note but an agreement and was admissible in evidence on the payment of penalty as provided under sec. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.
(2.) IT is argued by the plaintiff opposite party that a revision application against the order of the Civil Judge, Nagaur is not maintainable. In the case of S. Nrijraj Sharan vs. Sahu Raghunandan (1), a revision application filed against the order holding the document was a promissory note and was inadmissible in evidence. This is a Division Bench case and relying on this authority, I hold that the present revision application is maintainable. The only point to be determined in this revision application is whether the document is a promissory note or not. The relevant portion of the document translated in English runs as follows: - "greeting from Ramnath Nathmal to Bhai Bhagirathji Rs. 1500/- in words (Rupess fifteen hundred only)are payable up to date to you after comparing accounts. The same shall bear interest at-/12/-p. m. This amount shall be paid on demand. Kartik Sudi 1st Smt. 2008. Signed Narsingdass". It is the case of the parties that the defendant constituted a joint Hindu family shall carried on business in the name and style of Ramnath Nathmal and that Narsingdass was one of the junior member of this joint Hindu family. It may be taken that for the purposes of this case a promissory note under the Stamp Act means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instrument Act. Under sec. 4th the Negotiable Instrument Act a promissory note must be signed by the maker. In this case the promissory note is signed by one of the defendants Narsingdass while in the body of the instrument the person or persons who made the promise is referred to as Ramnath Nathmal. On reading the document it is clear that it is Ramnath Nathmal which has given the promise to pay Rs. 1500/ -. One who makes such a promise is called the maker. See - Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 3, Art. 229. On the face of the document it cannot be said that Narsingdass signed it on behalf of Ram Nath Nathmal. It has been held by their Lordships of the privy Council in the case of Firm Sadasuk Janki Das vs. Kishen Pershad (2) that: - "it is of the utmost importance that the name of a person or firm to be charged upon a negotiable document should be clearly stated on the face or on the back of the document so that the responsibility is made plain and can be instantly recognised as the document passes from hand to hand". As the document reads it is Ramnath Nathmal who is charged under the document to pay the amount mentioned therein on demand. Narsingdass does not purport to sign the document on behalf of Ramnath Nathmal. For this reason it cannot be said that the document is signed by the maker. If the document is not signed by the maker it is not a promissory note according to the definition of promissory note under sec. 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As to the form of signature in the case of a partnership firm, 1 may refer to the following observations in Art. 360 in the Treatise on the Law of Negotiable Instruments by J. W. Daniel Vol. I, 6th Edition. "the signature of the firm should be written by the copartner in the very terms of the style of the firm. Or the copartner should express that he signs his own name for himself and his copartners, or should write out the name of the firm. The best way is to write simply the firm's name and, if he please, with the addition by "a. B. " that being the name of the signing member. Certainly it should distinctly appear that the signature is intended to bind the firm, and (except in the case of an acceptance by one partner in his own name of a bill drawn on the firm, which case will presently be considered) such will not be the manifest intention unless the instrument be signed in the manner above indicated. " In view of the fact that the promissory note is a negotiable instrument and having regard to the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Firm Sadasuk Janki Das vs. Sir Kishen Pershad (2) it would be proper to hold that when a joint family carries on business in the particular name and style any member signing a negotiable instrument on behalf of the joint family business should do so in a manner which may clearly point out that he its signing on its behalf. Whatever may be the legal consequences of not so signing, the document not so signed, cannot be termed as a promissory note. 1 am, therefore, of opinion that the document in suit is not a promissory note. The revision application has got no force and is dismissed with costs. .;