SRINIVASA RAGHAVA AIYANGAR Vs. KRRANGANATHA AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in this suit executed a promissory note for Rs. 2,500 on 4th December 1913 in favour of one Aramudachari and two days later gave a security-bond to the same individual for the same debt. The plaintiff obtained an assignment of both instruments and sued upon them. The second defendant is a subsequent purchaser; and the third defendant is the Official Receiver of Tanjore, who was made a party in consequence of first defendant s insolvency. The plaintiff has succeeded in obtaining a personal decree against first defendant for what was due upon the promissory note, but his claim to be allowed to enforce his charge upon the first defendant s immoveable properties has been refused by both the lower Courts on the ground that there was no consideration for the security-bond (Ex. C), and upon this point he has lodged this second appeal.

(2.) The considration for Ex. C is stated in para. 4 of the plaint to be the forbearance of the payee under the promissory note (Ex. A) to press the first defendant for payment when he became aware after the execution of Ex. A of the great extent of first defendant s indebtedness and his concession of some time before filing a suit. Both the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge, in considering the issue relating to consideration for the security-bond, in my opinion, misdirected themselves on the question of law involved in this issue.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge followed Manna Lal v. Bank of Bengal (1876) I.L.R. 1 A. 309 which he thought to be exactly in point. The District Judge seems to think that forbearance to sue must be forbearance for some particular time in order to constitute valuable consideration, as he rejects the evidence of the payee Aramudachari himself (P. W. 2) on account of his failure to specify the length of time he gave the first defendant when he executed Ex. C, although it does not appear from his deposition that any question was put to the witness on this point. Manna Lal v. Bank of Bengal (1876) I.L.R. 1 A. 309, has been followed by this Court in Mnthnkaruppa Mmlali v. Kalhapudayan , but both those cases are distinguishable from the present case on the facts. In the former case the hundi debt had not matured when the acceptor of the hund is pledged his own house and shops as security for due payment and thus there was obviously no consideration for the pledge. In the latter case it was held that a mere recommendation by A of a borrower B was not good consideration for a contract based on a subsequent promise to the lender C to pay advances made to B.