Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.

Madras High Court
Govindaraja Mudali vs Samarapuri Chettiar And Anr. on 4 April, 1929
Equivalent citations: AIR 1930 Mad 112
Author: Wallace


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 Court’s 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.170 seconds.