AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 183 wordsWallace, J.—The only direct authorities on the point of law cited before me are three, Gopal Daji v. Gopal Sonu [1904] 28 Bom. 248,
Swami Aiyangar alias Srinivasa Varthachariar Vs. Lakshmi alias Echammal, 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 Swami Aiyangar alias Srinivasa Varthachariar Vs. Lakshmi alias Echammal, . The liability of the surety is, therefore, not saved from the bar of
limitation by the payment by the principal.
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.