A contract of guarantee must be supported by consideration contemporaneous to the surety's contract to be valid. Past benefits to the principal debtor do not constitute valid consideration for a subsequent guarantee.

B. P. BERI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ganganagar dated 19th March, 1958 who has set aside the money decree, of the trial Court against one of the defendants.

( 2 ) A Joint Hindu family firm of the name and style of Asaram Kedarmal instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Suratgarh for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,400/8/6 as principal and Rs. 2,657/7/6 as interest against Harisingh Sikh and Lt. Col. Harisingh To avoid confusion I shall be referring in this judgment one as harisingh and the other as the Lt. Col. The plaintiff started money dealings with harisingh who was a tenant of the Lt. Col. The latter undertook the responsibility of paying if any of the dues of Harisingh remained unpaid. The transactions between the plaintiff and Harisingh were settled and cleared off and Harisingh executed an entry in the account book of the plaintiff for having received a sum of rs. 7500/- in cash on 18-12-1953. The Lt. Col. signed this entry stating that he was responsible for the repayment of this amount of money. Other items consisting of the sum of Rs. 175/- and Rs. 21/- which remained due on the basis of the previous accounts together with another sum of Rs. 3/- were also claimed. A credit was given in this Khata for Rs. 1298/7/6 from some separate account of the It. Col. and thus the total claim made by the plaintiff came to Rs. 9058/inclusive of interest at the rate of Rs. 1/4/- per cent per mensem.

( 3 ) HARISHIGH admitted the existence of the previous accounts between him and the plaintiff and pleaded that it was settled and cleared. He denied having executed the entry in the sum of Rs. 7500/- and contended that he had never borrowed this amount. The claim for interest was also disputed. He pleaded that he used to deliver his entire agricultural produce to the plaintiffs firm and in fact he had paid the plaintiffs dues five times over. Some other legal pleas were also raised which are no longer in controversy and need not be mentioned.

( 4 ) THE Lt. Col. repudiated the claim of the plaintiff and denied the allegation that he had undertaken the responsibility for the re-payment of the alleged loan. He pleaded lack of consideration for his suretyship although he admitted having signed the entry. He explained his signatures by saying that Harisingh and the plaintiff has certain old accounts over which there was some dispute. Harisingh refused to sign the entry unless the position of his previous accounts was clarified and it was for the purpose of explaining the accounts to Harisingh that he had undertaken the responsibility and put his signatures and not for repaying the alleged debt

( 5 ) THE Civil Judge, Suratgarh passed a decree for the principal amount of Rs. 6204. 62np. against Harisingh and the Lt. Col. but dismissed the suit in respect of other claims. Dissatisfied with this judgment and decree the Lt. Col. preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Ganganagar and the plaintiff preferred cross-objections. The learned District Judge held that no cash consideration passed between the parties at the time of the execution of the entry in the account book and, therefore, the Lt. Col. as a surety was not liable in view of the provisions of section 127 of the Indian Contract Act. He found that no rate of interest having been mentioned in the entry he was unable to accept the plaintiffs version that the defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1/4/- per cent per mensem and accordingly rejected the cross-objections. Aggrieved against this judgment and decree the plaintiff has now preferred this second appeal.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that Ex. P-2 admittedly bears the signature of the Lt. Col. whereby he had undertaken the responsibility of repaying the loan. This loan had for its consideration the earlier dealings between the parties. Therefore, the contract of guarantee entered into by