KRISHNASAMI PATTAR Vs. GOPALAKRISHNA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, in S. C. S. No. 283 of 1924.

(2.) Petitioner and first defendant executed a pro-note in favour of one Perundevi Ammal, the petitioner being only a surety. First defendant sold his property to second defendant on the condition that the second defendant would pay off Perundevi Ammal among other creditors. Petitioner paid Perundevi Ammal and sued second defendant as well as first defendant. The lower Court was apparently prepared to hold that Perundevi Ammal would be entitled to sue defendant; but unsuited petitioner as against second defendant because he was only a surety claiming by reason of his having discharged the debt. Hence the petition.

(3.) The counter-petitioner seeks to uphold the judgment on the ground that even Perundevi Ammal would have no right to sue, and he relies upon Iswaram Pillai V/s. Taragan [1915] 38 Mad. 753 which lays down that a stranger to the contract cannot sue the promisor. But suits of this character have been admitted on another principle that the property is held in trust for the creditors for which proposition there is strong authority in Deb Narain Dut V/s. Chuni Lal Ghose [1913] 41 Cal. 137 and Ramaswami Aiyar V/s. Deivasigamani Pillai A. I. R. 1922 Mad. 397 the case referred to by the Subordinate Judge. Devadoss, J., sitting in this Court in Singaraya V/s. Subbayya A. I. R. 1924 Mad. 861 has examined all the authorities, and has come to the conclusion that plaintiff in such cases is entitled to an equitable relief. I agree, and it is unnecessary to traverse the same ground.