9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay was granted, and the 1st respondent executed a surety-ship bond on 12-7-1955. the material part of which runs as follows: '' It is agreed that if the appeal preferred by the defendant from the above case is disposed of against the defendant. then I shall deposit the decree amount in whole due to the decree holder in the above first appeal without involving the defendant and in case of failure to do so it shall be realised from me and my properties in the same manner as it could be realised from the defendant 2. The Kerala Act 91 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on 14 7-1958. The decree-holder (appellant) filed K.P No. 98 of 1960 on 17-9-1960 for execution both against the judgment debtor and against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the measure of their obligations Counsel for the surety contended that both on the terms of the bond as well as on the provisions of S. 198 of the Indian Contract Act, the measure of the obligation of the surely was co-extensive with that of the judgment-debtor. 4. As far as the terms of the bond are concerned, there is no doubt, that the surety's liability is limited to the amount due under the decree. The amount covered by the decree can be varied by such well known modes as by appeal or by review or by amendment. It seems to us, it can equally be varied or modified by statutory provisions. In whatever way the modification or variation of the decretal amount is brought about, we are of opinion that the surety is entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability is coextensive with that of the principal debtor. It has nothing to do with the consequences of recovery of the debt Such being the scope and intendment section, we feet that a statutory reduction or extinguishment of the principal debtor's liability will operate as a protanto reduction, or extinguishment of the surety's debt. A reduction or extinguishment of the debt, is quite different from its unenforceability against the principal debtor by operation of the law of Bankruptcy or the statute of Limitation. 8. It appears to us, that to bold otherwise, would be to altogether deny the benefit of the ameliorative provisions of the Act, to the agriculturist-debtor. On any other view, it would be open to the creditor to recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
