SRINIVASA CHETTI Vs. CHENNA CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stood surety in a sum of Rs. 4,000 for the respondent who undertook to re-pay to a minor his share of an estate in case the Court declared that the minor had been validly adopted. The petitioner subsequently applied to be released from his obligation under the bonds and that the bonds should be cancelled. The District Judge has held that he cannot be released from his obligations unless and until he finds some one else willing to offer security.

(2.) It is now contended that it is not the petitioner s duty to find another security but it is the respondent s duty either to pay up the whole amount for, which the security is given or to produce some other security. This ignores the contract entered into by the petitioner that he would be responsible until a certain specified time for any loss that might be incurred by the minor during that period and that contract cannot be set aside at the mere wish of the petitioner. It is possible that he may have some remedy against the respondent if he can prove the misconduct alleged, but he has contracted both with the respondent, and with the Court that he will carry out a certain promise, namely, to pay Rs. 4,000 if default is committed by the respondent. It is not for him to say that he will or will not discharge this obligation and, therefore, I think that the District Judge was right in dismissing his application. I may refer in Ibis connection to a case, reported in Bai Somi v. Chokshi Ishvardas Mangaldas 19 B. 245 : Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 166 which supports my view.