LexRAJA BAHADURI DHANRAJ GIRJI versus RAJA P. PARTHASARATHY RAYANIMVARU AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
> 3 ·s.c.R. SUPREME COU.B.T REfORTS 921 We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the order of the Board of Revenue and remand the cases to it for decision in accordance with law. We further direct it to decide itself the contention raised by the respondents about their having acquired adivasi rights under the U.P. Zll.mindari Abolition and Reforms Act. In case the Boll.rd takes the view that for deciding the. said issue any finding of fact is necessary, it may call for the said finding from the Trial Court and, on rece1vmg it, proceed to deal with the ,appeals on the merits. In the circums~anoes of these cases, we direct that the parties on either side bear their own costs. Appeals allowed. RAJA BAHADURi DHANRAJ GIRJI v. RAJA P. PARTHASARATHY RAYANIMVARU AND OTHERS. (P. B. G.A.JENDR.A.GADKAR and K. a. D.A.s GUPTA, JJ.) Surety Bond-Executed in favour of Court-Compromise decree in the Jiroceeding, if effects a discharge-Equitable rule- _lndian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), ss. 135, 126. Although s. 135 of the Indian Contract Act does not in terms apply to a surety bond executed in favour of the court, there can be no doubt that the equitable rule underlying that section must apply to it. The reason for the said rule which entitles the surety to a discharge is that he must be able at any time either to require the creditor to call upon the princi- pal debtor to pay off his debt, or himself to pay the debt and seek his remedy against the principal de~tor. · The question as to whether the liability of the surety is discharged by a compromise in the judicial proceeding in which the surety bond is. executed must depend on' the term, of the bond ~tsc:l'.. If the ter~s indicate ~hat the surety undertook the habihty on the basis. that the dispute should be 1962 Sham Karlik Si11gll v. Mathura Raghubar Day'l.I J. 1962 Septemb1(4. I Raja Bahed•ir qhaaraj (,,irji ' "· ·: RajaP. f'arthasarathy Rayanimcaru • 922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] decided on the merits by the court and not amicably settled, the compromise will effect a discharge of the_ surety. The Offici&l Liquiclators, The Travanwre National & · Quifon Bank Ltd. v, . The OfficialAssignu of.MadrM I. L. R. . 1944: Mad. 708, Parvatibai v. Vinayak Balvant, I. L. R. 1938 Born. 794. Mahomtdalli lbrahimji v. Laxmibai, (1929) I. L. R. LIV B()m. 118, Nar~ngh Maliton \1. Nirpat Singh, (1932) · ·I. L. R. XI Patna p90 and Muhammad Yusafv. Ram Gobinda Ojha, ( 1927) I; L. R. L V Cal. 91, referred to. . · But if the term~ show that the parties and the surety contemplated that there might be an amicable settlement as. well, and the surety executed the bond knowin_g that he might be liable under the compromise decree, ther~ can be no discharge and the surety will be lia~Ie under the compromise decree. Hdji Ahmed v. Maruti Ram.ii, (1930) I. L. R. LV Born .. 97. AppunnJ Nair v. /sack Maclcadan, (1919) I. L. R. 43 Mad. 272 and Kannilal M oolcerjee v. Kali Mohan Chatterjee; A. I. R. 1957 Cal. 645, referred to. · consequently, in. t'he present case whr:re the surety bond was executed in favour of court and by it the sureties under- t qok to pay certain amount of money on behalf of the respon- · dent if decre«"d by the ~ourt and the compromise decree bet- ween the parties introduced complicated provisfons enabling the appellant to take possession of the properties in adjust- ment of rival claims, grante_d time, albeit. to both the parties, to disrharge their obligations thereunder and 'included matters extraneous to the judicial proceedings in which the surety bond was executed. Hild, that the sureties stood. discharged by the com- promise decree. Crvn.. APPELL.ATE JtJIUSDICTION: CivH Appca]s NcEI. 343, 344 and E45 of 59. Appeals from tbe jud!(ment ar,d ord«r datEd Janua1y 12, 1950 of the l\1adJBs High Couz.t in A.,A. 0. Nos. 288 to 290 of 1946. AUadi ·Kuppuswamy, S. B. Jathar and K. R. Ohoud4uri, for the appellants. · . A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, V. Vedantachari and T. Satyariarayana, for .respondent No·. 2 (in C.' A. No. 345 of 59.) · .. ··-t . . .L 1 ) 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 923 T. V. R. Tatachari, for respondents Nos; 3 to 6 (in C. A. Nos. 343 and 344' of 59) and respondents Nos. 5 to 8 (in C. A. No. 345· of 195Q.) 1962. September 4. The Judgment of the Co_urt was delivered by 19112 . ltaja Bahadur L hanraj _Girji v. lfoja P • . Ptrtha1aratl1> Royanim
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.