KONDAPALLI LAKSHMINARASAYYA Vs. KONDAPALLI VENKATAKRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the promissory note, Exhibit C, plaintiff and first defendant were both liable as sureties for one Sitaramamma. Without defendant's knowledge, the plaintiff discharged that liability by executing jointly with one Appalasami a promissory note, Exhibit E, to the original creditor's transferee. Plaintiff discharged this latter note and has now obtained a decree for contribution. We think this is quite wrong. When the creditor accepted Exhibit E, in discharge of Exhibit C, the principal debtor was discharged and under Section 134 of the Contract Act, the, sureties would be discharged from liability; plaintiff by undertaking with a third party to discharge the original debt cannot keep alive his original co-surety's liability; The debt under Exhibit E is quite a new transaction and first defendant who was ignorant of it, cannot be made 1 able without his consent. The case cited for respondent, Whiting V/s. Burke (1870) 10 Eq. 539 was decided on the special nature of the agreement between the parties and is not applicable here. The other cases cited deal with the liability of co-sureties; but in this case, what has to be decided is whether first defendant's Lability as a cosurety still subsisted and in the circumstances we are satisfied that it did not.

(2.) THE second appeal is accordingly allowed and plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs throughout.