PL RM KR KARUPPAN CHETTIAR Vs. ACTNNAGAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case applied for execution of his decree against the judgment-debtor as well as against the latter's surety. Execution was granted against the surety and against this order the surety appeals.

(2.) In the Lower Court there was a ground taken that the decree had been satisfied. This was found against and though it has been raised in the memorandum of appeal, it was given up in argument before us.

(3.) The circumstances in which the security bond came to be taken are as follows. The decree-holder put in E. P. No. 252 of 1931, dated the 4 December, 1931, to arrest the judgment-debtor. Notice was sent and finally the judgment-debtor was arrested on the 18 January, 1932. He prayed for one week's time for the purpose of settling the decree with the plaintiff and for making arrangements for paying the amount. The order of the Court on this, dated the 25 January, 1932, was " 3 days time more allowed; to be produced on the 28 January ". On that date the judgment-debtor put in a petition, E. A. No. 86 of 1932, to release him from arrest on the strength of the surety. This was accompanied by an affidavit. The surety-appellant executed on the same date in favour of the Court a security bond the material part of which is as follows: The defendant in the above suit, vis., Pm. Rm. Perianan Chettiar was arrested, and he was produced before this Court. He agreed with the plaintiff to discharge the decree debt within a month and he requested time for a month. The said Perianan Chettiar requested me to stand surety therefor, and I agreed to it and executed this bond. If the above Perianan Chettiar does not discharge the said decree to the plaintiff within one month, I hereby agree that myself, my heirs and the successors to my title are bound to pay the amount in full due upon the said decree, and I have executed this surety bond.