1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 from a decree passed in the suit based on a promissory note, Ext. P-2, dated 10th March, 1955 executed by the appellants as well as the 1st defendant in favour of the 1st respondent the plaintiff. The only question arising for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants can be held liable on the note.

2. It is urged that they were only sureties and further that there has been a novation of the contract embodied in Ext. P-2 promissory note by the execution of the agreement Ext. P-1, dated 1st June 1955 between the 1st respondent and the 1st defendant. The court below held dealing with issues 5 and 6 framed in the case that there has been no novation. It also held that defendants 2 and 3 are liable. It is not clear from the finding entered on issues 1 and 2 whether the court below came to the conclusion that defendants 2 and 3 are only sureties.

3. The arguments before us centred mainly under two heads. Firstly, it was urged that defendants 2 and 3 were only sureties and that in view of the fact that the securities available to the appellants were impaired by the execution of Ext, P-1, the appellants have been released f