Govindaraja Mudali v. Samarapuri Chettiar

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.

2. 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. The liability of the surety is, therefore, not saved from the bar of limitation by the payment by the principal.

3. 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.

P.R.S/P.R

4. Appeal allowed.