ADAMSAB USMANSAB KANAKYA Vs. GURUSHINDDAYYA LINGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal by the surety for the performance of a decree, the only question raised relates to the interpretation of the principal or operative clause of the bond executed by him in favour of the Court.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are the following:-The first respondent in this appeal filed a suit against the other two respondents as defendants 1 and 2 for the dissolution of and taking of accounts in respect of a partnership business alleged to have been carried by the parties for some years prior to the suit. According to the averments contained in the plaint, the plaintiff had been for a considerable time advancing moneys to the second defendant for or in connection with the business carried on by the latter in a small cloth shop conducted by him, and the understanding between the parties was that in lieu of interest for the advances, the borrower-second defendant should give me lender-plaintiff an amount equal to half share of the profits derived from the cloth business carried on by the borrower. There are also other averments in the plaint suggesting that the borrowings were later treated as contributions by the plaintiff to the capital of the firm, thus conferring upon the plaintiff the status of a partner. The second defendant appears to have repudiated in his written statement the plaint suggestion that the plaintiff was a partner or had acquired the status of a partner in the business carried on by him.

(3.) Upon or shortly after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff applied for the attachment of certain moveables belonging to the second defendant and also for the appointment of a Receiver to lake charge of the second defendants' cloth shop. It was at this stage and with a view to obviate the attachment and the appointment of a Receiver that the appellant in this appeal agreed to furnish security or guarantee for the benefit of the second defendant. The surety bond in question was thereupon executed by the appellant. After reciting the circumstances leading to the appellant offerings to stand as surety for the second defendant, me bond sets out the nature and extent of the guarantee offered by the appellant in the following terms:--(Original in Kannada script herein transliterated) ["Sadar Dawadalli Dawa parkar Lekkawagi sadaree Daweyo pratiwadiya Virudhawagi Wadiya K Dicree: Adalli Aaage Wadige pratiwadyn Kodubahudad Hanawannu conrtinawaru Hukum madidastu Roopaigalannu Awanu kodistane"] This is the sentence the interpretation of which is the subject of keen controversy between the parties. There is another sentence in the bond which limits the guarantee to a maximum of Rs. 8,000 in regard to which no question arises.