Back
1929 Supreme(Mad) 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Wallace
Govindaraja Mudali
Versus
Samarapuri Chettiar
Decided On : 4 April, 1929
The liability of the surety is not saved from the bar of limitation by the payment made by the principal.
Headnote:
Surety - Liability - Limitation
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the liability of the surety in relation to the bar of limitation, based on the payment by the principal.
Finding of the Court:
The court reversed the decree of the lower appellate court and restored that of the District Munsif, holding that the liability of the surety is not saved from the bar of limitation by the payment made by the principal. The weight of authority was against the lower appellate court's view.
Issues: The main issue was the liability of the surety in relation to the bar of limitation and the payment made by the principal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the weight of authority, including previous decisions, to determine that the liability of the surety is not saved from the bar of limitation by the payment made by the principal.
Final Decision: The court reversed the decree of the lower appellate court and restored that of the District Munsif, and awarded costs to the appellant.
Wallace, J.
1. The only direct authorities on the point of law cited before me are three, Gopal Daji v. Gopal Sonu [1904] 28 Bom. 248, Sami Aiyangar v. Laxmi [1911] 21 M.L.J. 455 and Harbans Lal v. Nathu [1930] 105 P.R. 1919. Of these the two former are against the view taken by the learned District Judge and the latter is in his favour, relying, however, on a decision of this Court in Velayudan Pillai v. Vythilingam Pillai [1912] 24 M.L.J. 66, which deliberately refrains from deciding the point at issue here. So the weight of authority is against the lower appellate Courts view, and I see no reason why I should take a different view from that taken by this Court, already in Sami Aiyangar v. Laxmi [1911] 21 M.L.J. 455. The liability of the surety is, therefore, not saved from the bar of limitation by the payment by the principal.
2. I reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif Appellant will get his costs here and in the lower appellate Court.
