TMI Blog1902 (6) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mise was entered into between the parties, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to give time to Harnam for payment of the debt, upon the condition that the defendants in the present suit should guarantee the payment of the debt. This they agreed to do, and they executed on the 30th of August, 1886, a bond, which provided that if Harnam failed to pay the amount of the decree by annual instalments of Rs. 100 with interest, the sureties would pay the amount of the decree, and by the bond they pledged their property as security for the fulfilment of their obligation. On the 6th of November, 1886, the security was accepted by the Collector--we do not know under what powers--and he granted time and sanctioned the compromise. Six annual instalments were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiffs, and the case on their behalf has been ably presented to the court by Mr. Tej Bahadur. We are unable, however, to follow him in the argument which he has presented. He relies with confidence on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Haja, rimal v. Krishnarav I.L.R.(1881) 5 Bom. 647. The question turns upon the true construction of several sections of the Indian Contract Act, the first and most important of which is Section 134. This provides that "the surety is discharged by any contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, by which the principal debtor is released, or by any act or omission of the creditor, the legal consequence of which is the discharge of the principal debtor." Section 187, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce for such length of time as by reason of the statute of limitation would be a bar to the claim against the principal debtor. In the case to which" we have referred in the Bombay High Court, it was decided by the Chief Justice, Sir M. Westropp, and Mr. Justice Bird wood, that, although the suit in that case was barred as against the principal debtor under the Limitation Act, yet the surety being an agriculturist, was still liable, inasmuch as Section 72 of the Dekhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, which extends the period of limitation in the case of suits against agriculturists, applies to all agriculturists, whether principals or sureties, in the districts affected by the Act. In the judgment of the court the meaning of the sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hazari Lal v. Chunni Lal I.L.R.(1886) All. 256. In that case the facts are very similar to the facts of the present case. A decree-holder in execution proceedings agreed to accept payment of the decretal amount by the judgment debtors in annual instalments. Pie also agreed to accept a surety bond for the payment of the debt from certain other persons in the following terms: "In case of default in payment of the instalments, the whole decretal money, with costs and interest at 8 annas per cent., shall be executed after one month; and for the satisfaction of the decree-holder, we the executants stand as sureties of the judgment-debtors." The judgment-debtors paid five instalments and then made default. The decree-holder omitted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho omitted in this case to resort to the execution of his decree, and allowed it to become a dead letter by limitation, is, in our opinion, much more serious than 'mere forbearance' in favour of his debtors." In that case the case in I.L.R. 5 Bom. does not appear to have been brought to the] notice of the learned Judges. But in the more recent case of Radha v. Kinlock I.L.R.(1889)All. 310 the authority of the case in I.L.R. 5. Bom., was discussed by Sir John Edge, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Tyrrell, and it was held there that "the omission of a creditor to sue his principal debtor within the period of limitation discharges the surety under Section 134 of the Contract Act, even though the non-suing within such period ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|