BAIDYA NATH SEIN Vs. KUMUD CHANDRA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Ameer Ali who passed a decree in the respondent's favour for Rs. 2,400, with interest and costs.

(2.) The suit was for the sum decreed, which was claimed on the footing that the respondent had paid it as the guarantor of the appellant, from whom as principal debtor, the respondent, was entitled to recover it under Section 145 of the Indian Contract Act. The defence was that in fact the appellant was the guarantor, the respondent being the principal debtor.

(3.) On October 3, 1928, the respondent and one Prandhone Kundu, who was the second defendant in the suit, executed a promissory note for Rs. 3,000 in favour of one Sankar Lall Datta. The numbers of the currency notes that made up the consideration were set out in the note which was witnessed by the appellant, who is an attorney of this Court. Subsequently on the same day the appellant executed a second promissory note in Datta's favour for Rs. 3,000, the consideration being described as the sum mentioned in the former note. Bach note carried interest at 12 per cent, per annum.