Learned counsel for the 5th defendant strenuously argued that the initialsof a person do not constitute his signature. In the instant case it is quiteclear and it is admitted that the 5th defendant placed his initials on theback of the cheques. He claims that he did so only for the purpose ofauthenticating the signature of the payee and not- as an endorsee of thecheque. But the learned District Judge has rejected his explanation andheld that he did so as an endorsee.
There is nothing in the context of section 32 of the Bills of ExchangeOrdinance that excludes signature by initials and we are of the opinionthat an endorsement written on a bill and signed by the endorsee withhis initials is a good endorsement for the purpose of that provision.The word ‘ sign ’ is from the Latin sigrt/um, and means a mark. A sig-na-tore is the name or -special mark placed on a document by a person orby his authorised agent either with his own hand or with the hand ofsuch agent or with any artificial aid or mechanical device with the
=214SnSHSTETAMBY, J.—Haramanis v. Fernando.
intention of authenticating a document as being that of, or as binding on,the person "whose name or mark is so placed. Signature does not,necessarily, mean writing a person’s forename and surname in fall.The signature of a person on a document by placing thereon the initialletters of his names or name is a good signature. This mode of signatureis not uncommon among the Indian business community in Ceylonespecially the South Indian.
For the above reasons we affirm the finding of the learned trial Judgeand dismiss the appeal with costs.
Pttlle, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.