HAJEE MOOSA SAIT AND BROTHERS THRO ITS MANAGING PARTNER ABDULLA SALAI MUHAMMED SAIT Vs. PSPABDUL KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 256-1-6, being the amount due in respect of goods supplied to the first defendant between the 17 December, 1931, and 31 December, 1932. The 2nd defendant was sought to be made liable as surety in virtue of a letter of guarantee executed by him in plaintiff's favour dated 16 December, 1931, which runs thus: Haji Musa Sait and Brothers1 Margali Prajorpathi year(16 December, 1931) Karim writes as follows: Please supply the bearer of this letter Section Shamsuddin Sahib Avergal of Tirupathur, goods in current account up to the extent of Rs. 250 (Rupees Two hundred and fifty) and have debit and credit transactions in his name. "For the said amount I shall be surety for a period of one year. Thereafter I shall not be surety. If any amount be due to you within the aforesaid period of one year during which I shall be surety, I shall pay the same and take this letter. After one year I shall not be surety. With compliments. Nayan's help(Sd.) P.C.P. Abdul Karim. During the period of one year during which the guarantee was to subsist the first defendant was supplied goods on four occasions and on two of such goods of the value of more than Rs. 250 were supplied. The plea of the second defendant is that as the plaintiff exceeded the limit indicated by him in his said letter there was a variation of the terms of the contract entered into with him and he was there f6re discharged from all liability thereunder. This plea prevailed in the Court below.

(2.) The question is whether it is sound. No doubt as pointed out by Lord Atkin in Seth Pratap Singh V/s. Keshavlal (1934) 68 M.L.J. 339 : L.R. 62 I.A. 23 : I.L.R. 59 Bom. 180 (P.C.): the surety like any other contracting party, cannot be held bound to something for which he has not contracted.

(3.) And he refers to the observations of Lord Westbury in Blest V/s. Brown (1862) 4 De G.F. and J. 367 at 376 : 45 E.Rule 1225, namely: He (surety) is bound therefore merely according to the proper meaning and effect of the written engagement that he has entered into. If that written engagement is altered in a single line, no matter whether it be altered for his benefit no matter whether the alteration be, innocently made, he has a right to say, The contract is no longer that for which I engaged to be surety; you have put an end to the contract that I guaranteed, and my obligation therefore is at an end .