- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Krishto Kishori Chowdhrain And v. Radha Romun Munshi And Anr
Factual and Procedural Background
The defendant became liable as a surety for a person who took an ijara lease from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs initially obtained a decree against the defendant in the first Court. However, the second Court (Appellate Court) set aside that decree on the ground that the defendant, as surety, could not be held liable because the claim against the principal debtor had become barred by limitation. Consequently, the Appellate Court dismissed the suit against the defendant.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a surety can be held liable when the claim against the principal debtor has become barred by limitation.
- The effect of the creditor's forbearance or delay in suing the principal debtor on the liability of the surety under the Contract Act.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hajarimal v. Krishnarav, I.L.R. 5 Bom. 647 | Interpretation of surety liability and creditor's forbearance under the Contract Act | Supported the court's view that mere forbearance to sue the principal debtor does not discharge the surety in absence of contrary guarantee provisions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court disagreed with the Appellate Court's view that the surety could not be held liable once the claim against the principal debtor was barred by limitation. It relied on Sections 133 to 139 of the Contract Act, particularly Section 137, which states that mere forbearance by the creditor to sue the principal debtor does not discharge the surety unless the guarantee provides otherwise. The court cited the precedent of Hajarimal v. Krishnarav to reinforce this principle. Accordingly, the court found that the Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit against the surety solely because of limitation against the principal debtor.
Holding and Implications
The decree of the lower Appellate Court is set aside. The case is remanded to the lower Appellate Court for determination of the amount of liability of the defendant. The appellants are entitled to the costs of this appeal, while the costs in the lower Courts will depend on the final outcome of the suit. This decision clarifies that a surety’s liability is not automatically discharged by limitation against the principal debtor when the creditor has merely refrained from suing the principal debtor, absent any contrary guarantee provision. No new precedent was set beyond reaffirming the application of the Contract Act provisions and existing case law.
1. In this case the defendant became liable, according to the findings of both Courts, as surety for a person who took an ijara lease from the plaintiffs. The suit is now brought against the defendant. The first Court gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The second Court has set aside that decree on the ground that the defendant is a surety, that the claim against the principal debtor has been allowed to become barred by limitation, and that, therefore, the claim against the present defendant cannot be sustained. The learned Judge in the Appellate Court says this in paragraph 22 and the following paragraphs of the judgment:
22.--As the plaintiff then has allowed the claim to become barred against the principal, he cannot recover from the surety.
23.--And the inevitable result must be that the suit should be dismissed.
24.--This Court then finds in his favour the point urged by appellant, that he cannot be held liable when the claim against his principal has become barred.
2. We are unable to agree in the view taken by the lower Appellate Court. The law on this subject is now embodied in Section 133[1] down to and inclusive of Section 139 of the Contract Act.
3. The earlier of those sections prescribes what acts on the part of a creditor, by way of releasing, or agreeing to give time, or other transaction with the principal debtor, shall have the effect of discharging the surety. Section 137 says this:
"Mere forbearance on the part of the creditor to sue the principal debtor or to enforce any other remedy against him does not, in the absence of any provision in the guarantee to the contrary, discharge the surety."This is the section applicable to the present case. The law on the subject has been considered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Hajarimal v. Krishnarav I.L.R. 5 Bom. 647 and the view there taken is the same as that which we have expressed.
4. The decree, therefore, of the lower Appellate Court must be set aside. But as there are questions affecting the amount due to the plaintiffs raised both on the appeal presented to that Court and on the cross-appeal, the case must go back to the lower Appellate Court in order that that Court may determine the amount of the liability of the defendant.
5. The appellants will have the costs of this appeal. The costs in the lower Courts will abide the result of the suit.
Alert