CANARA BANK Vs. ABDURAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit for recovery of money failed at the lower appellate stage as against the first defendant. Therefore this Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit on the strength of Ext.A4 promissory note dated 6-5-1976, Ext.A1 acknowledgment dated 2-1-1979 by the first defendant and also Ext.A2 acknowledgment dated 23-12-1981. The suit was contested on the ground that it was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as there was no proper acknowledgment within the period of limitation commencing from the date of Ext.A4 to bind the defendants. The suit was decreed rejecting the contention of the defendants. The Second Defendant remained ex parte at the trial stage. Therefore, the Defendant No.1 filed an appeal. The 1st defendant is the principal debtor and the 2nd defendant is the guarantor. The lower appellate court found Ext.A2 acknowledgment dated 23-12-1981 by the guarantor was not sufficient enough to make the principal debtor, the defendant No.1, liable for the amount claimed in the suit. Thus, the decree of the Trial Court was partly modified and the decree was confined as against defendant No.2 alone. In other words defendant No.1 was found to be not liable for the money claimed to be recovered.

(3.) The substantial question of law arising in this case is whether on the strength of the authorisation as contained in Ext.A4, Ext.A2 acknowledgment by the 2nd defendant would bind the 1st defendant or not