SORNALINGA MUDALIYAR Vs. PAITAI NAIKEN ALIAS PACHAIYAPPA NAIKEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Munsif is in error in holding that where several persons make a joint promise in consideration of money paid to some of them, the others are entitled to contend that, because no portion of the consideration was received by them, there was no legal consideration for their own joint promise. The consideration paid to any of the joint promisors is legally sufficient to support the promise of all the joint promisors.

(2.) As regards the case of Sesha Aiyar v. Mangal Dossjee (1909) 20 M.L.J. 144 the learned judges seemed to have held that the single executant of a promissory note could show that there was no consideration for the only promise relied on, namely the promise by that single executant. If the learned judges intended to decide that a person who has made himself liable according to the tenor of the pronote could prove that he and the promisee agreed centemporaneously that he should not be held liable. I respectfully differ from that view, as it is opposed to Section 92 of the Evidence Act and to the Law merchant.

(3.) The case of Narasimham v. Ramaswami (1913) 24 M.L.J. 91 shows that as against the holder, one of the joint executants cannot be permitted even to prove that he was a mere surety. The plaintiff s contention as to subsequent interest and costs must also be allowed,