9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Recovery of uncollected rents by temple trustee from sons and sureties, Application of Indian Limitation Act, Liability of sons under Hindu Law, Liability of sureties under Indian Contract Act. Analysis: The plaintiff, as a temple trustee, filed a suit to recover uncollected rents due to the temple from the sons of the deceased trustee and certain sureties. The suit was dismissed as barred by limitation. The sons were held not liable under Article 98 of the Indian Limitation Act XV of 1877, as the property sought to be made liable was joint family property that passed to the sons by survivorship. The sons' liability under Hindu Law to pay the father's debts was discussed, emphasizing that they are not liable for debts barred against the father. The suit against the sons was based on the premise that rents were lost due to the father's inaction, making the suit against the sons untenable due to the father's barred liability. The liability of the sureties was examined based on Sections 134 and 137 of the Indian Contract Act IX of 1872. Section 134 states that a surety is not discharged by the creditor's omission to sue the principal debtor within the statutory period. Legal principles and precedents were cited to support the argument that mere omission to sue does not discharge the surety. The court highlighted that a barred debt is still considered a lawful debt, and the debtor is not discharged by lapse of time. The court emphasized that limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish the right itself, as per Section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act XV of 1877. The judgment clarified that forbearance to sue does not discharge the surety, as explicitly stated in Section 137 of the Indian Contract Act. The court disagreed with a previous decision and emphasized that the length of forbearance does not impact the surety's liability. The judgment distinguished various cases and ultimately dismissed the appeal against the sons but reversed the decrees against other defendants, remanding the suit for further proceedings to determine the liability of the property given as security. The costs were apportioned accordingly, and the judgment focused on the legal principles governing the liability of sons and sureties under the Indian laws.
|
