Arulanantham Et Al V. Attorney General

1950 Present: Dias S.P.J. and Gunasekara J.

ARULANANTHAM et al., Appellants, and THE ATTORNEY-
GENERAL, Respondent

S. C. 84 Inty.-D. C. Jaffna, 4,842

Contract-Suretyship-Separate agreements in two documents-Joinder of parties and causes of action-Meaning of " cause of action "-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 5, 14.

Where, in a contract involving suretyship, the parties executed two separate documents to embody their agreements and the obligee sued the obligor and the sureties in the same action-

Held, that the plaintiff's action was not bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The two documents were in reality one document and created one cause of action.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Jaffna.

N. E. Weerasooria, K.C., with H. W. Tambiah, for the defendant appellant.

M. Tiruchelvam, Crown Counsel, for the plaintiff respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

June 14, 1950. DIAS S.P.J.-

Solomon Arulanandam, being desirous that his son David should qualify as an Irrigation Officer, entered into two agreements marked " A ' and " B " bearing the same date, May 8, 1944, with the Director of Irrigation acting as the agent for the Government of Ceylon,

The parties to the agreement marked " A " are Solomon, David and the Director of Irrigation. David agreed that he would well and faithfully pursue his training as an " irrigation learner " for a period of three years, and to qualify himself for service as an Irrigation Field Assistant. David further undertook that, after becoming qualified, he would place his services at the disposal of the Ceylon Government for a period of not less than three years. He also promised that during that period he would efficiently and diligently discharge his duties. On behalf of the Government, the Director of Irrigation undertook to train David and pay him a subsistence allowance at a specified rate. It was further agreed that the Director of Irrigation should have power to rescind this agreement if it became necessary to do so either in consequence of the negligence of or the failure of David to attend the classes of instruction, or to perform such duties on irrigation works as he may be called upon to do, or in. consequence of idleness, insubordination, or misconduct. Solomon and David on their part solemnly undertook to enter into a bond with two sureties in a sum of Rs. 2,000 to serve as security for the due performance and fulfilment by David of his undertaking in the agreement marked "A ", and also for the payment of all loss or damage which the Government may suffer for the loss of Government property through the negligence or carelessness of David, or by the breach of any of the terms of the agreement. The agreement then contains the following clause : "In the: event of the agreement being rescinded under this clause, and the training and employment of the said .... David being terminated or in
the event of the said David resigning during the period of his training, the said Solomon .... and his sureties shall be liable to pay to the Government all sums of money paid to the said . . . David during his training, and all sums of money paid, ex pended, or incurred by the Government in respect of the training of the said . . . . David up to the date of termination thereof, and the value of any property lost or damaged through the neglect or carelessness of the said David".

The complementary document marked " B " was entered into on the same day. The parties to this agreement are Solomon, the principal debtor, and 2nd and 3rd defendants as the sureties referred to in " A ". By this bond Solomon, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants, after reciting the terms and conditions of the agreement marked "A ", state that the object of the bond " B " is " for the purpose of securing and indemnifying the Government of Ceylon against all loss and damage which it might or may in any way suffer by reason of the said agreement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document