Proof of execution and mandatory presentment govern liability on a negotiable instrument; unauthorised co-acceptance cannot bind the bank.

Execution of a private negotiable instrument must be proved before any statutory presumption of consideration can arise, so mere production or exhibit marking is insufficient where the signatures of drawer and acceptor are unproved. Authority under a power of attorney is construed strictly, and it does not extend to an unauthorised co-acceptance or guarantee unless expressly or by necessary implication authorised; the bank was not bound on that basis. Presentment for payment to the named acceptor is mandatory, and non-presentment is fatal unless liability is otherwise established. The decree for the plaintiff was set aside and the suit dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged bill of exchange was proved to be a valid negotiable instrument; (ii) Whether the bank was bound by the alleged co-acceptance made by its manager under the power of attorney; (iii) Whether failure to present the bill to the named acceptor barred the suit.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged bill of exchange was proved to be a valid negotiable instrument.

Analysis: The bill was a private document and its mere production or marking as an exhibit did not dispense with proof of execution. The signatures of the drawer and acceptor were not proved by any witness who saw the execution of the instrument. The statutory presumption as to consideration could not arise until execution was established. In the absence of proof under the Evidence Act, the document could not be treated as duly proved, and without a duly signed maker the instrument did not satisfy the statutory requirements of a bill of exchange.

Conclusion: The alleged bill of exchange was not proved and could not support the plaintiff's claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the bank was bound by the alleged co-acceptance made by its manager under the power of attorney.

Analysis: A power of attorney is construed strictly, and authority to accept negotiable instruments cannot be enlarged to include an unauthorised co-acceptance or guarantee unless the instrument expressly or by necessary implication so provides. Co-acceptance was not a recognised acceptance under the Act, and the manager acted alone without the joint authority required for giving a guarantee. The plea of co-acceptance had also been rejected at the amendment stage, and the suit could not be sustained on a case outside the pleadings. In these circumstances, the bank was not bound by the manager's acts.

Conclusion: The alleged co-acceptance did not bind the bank.

Issue (iii): Whether failure to present the bill to the named acceptor barred the suit.

Analysis: Presentment for payment to the acceptor is mandatory under the Act, and non-presentment absolves the other parties unless the party sought to be charged has validly engaged to pay notwithstanding such non-presentment. Since the named acceptor was not impleaded and the bank was not shown to be an acceptor or indorser liable in its place, the plaintiff could not rely on the alleged waiver letter or on section 76(b) to cure the defect. The suit was therefore fatally affected by non-presentment to the named acceptor.

Conclusion: The suit failed for non-presentment to the named acceptor.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff was set aside, the appeal succeeded, and the suit stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Execution of a private negotiable instrument must be proved before statutory presumptions can operate, and liability cannot be fastened on a party on the basis of an authority that does not expressly or by necessary implication extend to the act relied upon.

---