Sir John Beaumont.-This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated the 17th September, 1943, which varied a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore, dated the 31st October, 1940.

The first question for determination is whether under a contract of indemnity dated the 25th August, 1910, the appellants are liable to indemnify the first respondent for loss sustained by him in connection with a certain purchase. In the event of the appellants being held not liable the first respondent desires to contend that the second respondent is liable to make good to him the whole or part of his loss.

The relevant facts are as follows:-

One Inuganti Venkata Rama Rao, the son of the second respondent (who will be referred to hereafter as “the son”), obtained from his maternal grandfather, by way of gift, a one-fourth share in the Mokhasa village of Somavaram. During his minority, the second respondent (who will be referred to generally as “the vendor”) as his guardian, agreed to sell the said property to the father of the first respondent for Rs. 27,302. The purchaser was unwilling to purchase the property from the vendor as guardian of a minor without an indemnity. Accordingly the Maharajah of Venkatagiri, the grandfather of the appellants who was a close relation of the son, undertook to indemnify the purchaser from all loss he might suffer if the son, after attaining majority, should dispute the alienation. Such indemnity was contained in a written bond, dated the 25th August, 1910. The question raised in the appeal depends in the main on the construction of such bond, the precise terms of which will be discussed later.

The term “the purchaser” in this judgment will include the father of the first respondent and his successors in interest at the relevant dates and the term “the surety” will include the Maharajah of Venkatagiri and his successors at the relevant dates.

On the 14th October, 1910, the vendor executed a sale deed conveying the said one-fourth share in the village of Somavaram to the purchaser who paid the purchase money of Rs. 27,302. One square yard of vacant land in the village of Vundur, which is within the sub-registration District of Samalkot, was included in the sale deed with a view to have the document registered at Samalkot, which is near the place of residence of the vendor, instead of at Tiruvur where the Somavaram property was situated. The document was registered at Samalkot on the 14th February, 1911.

In 1922, which was some years after the death of the Maharajah of Venkatagiri and more than three years after the son had attained his majority, the son instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada against the purchaser (defendants 1 and 2). He sought to recover possession of the one-fourth share in the Mokhasa village of Somavaram together with mesne profits on the ground that the said alienation by the vendor was not binding on him for want of legal necessity. He also pleaded that the sale deed was void and inoperative as the registration of the document at Samalkot was a fraud on the law relating to registration of the documents because the plot of one square yard of land which was included in the sale deed was not intended to be conveyed but was included solely with the object of giving jurisdiction to the sub-registrar of Samalkot to register the document at Samalkot. The vendor was also impleaded in the suit as the fourth defendant and the surety was impleaded as the third defendant.

The said suit was tried by the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada who on the 20th September, 1924, held that the sale was not for legal necessity and was not binding on the son, but as he had failed to institute the suit within three years from the date of his attaining majority he was not entitled to succeed on that ground. The learned Judge, however, decreed the suit on the alternative ground that the sale deed was void and inoperative as