Judgement

Appeal (No. 30 of 1933) from a decree of the High Court (September 17, 1931) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad (February 12, 1926).

The appellants instituted a suit against the respondents claiming under a bond dated October 24, 1921, by which the respondents guaranteed to the appellants repayment by Krishnalal Narsinhlal of a loan of Rs. 1,25,000. The defence material to the present appeal was that there had been, without the consent of the respondents, an alteration in the transaction intended between the appellants and Krishnalal Narsinhlal, and set out in a registered deed of mortgage dated October 17, 1921, in relation to which the surety bond had been given.

The facts appear fully from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The High Court, reversing the trial judge, dismissed the suit. Nanavati J. held that there was admissible evidence which proved that the transaction actually carried out between the plaintiffs and Krishnalal Narsinhlal was not that of October 17, 1921. In his opinion the case was not covered by the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, and that being so, the Court was bound to follow the principles of the common law. It w