NAYAPATI RANGANADHAM PANTULU Vs. PRAGUDA APPALA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1 plaintiff and his brother sold certain property to 1 defendant. THE 1 defendant instead of paying the consideration to the vendors agreed to pay the consideration to a creditor of the vendors. This agreement was in 1899. Up to 1902 the 1 defendant had not paid the creditor. THE creditor brought a suit in 1902 and got a decree against the plaintiff. THE plaintiff now sues to recover the consideration with interest. THE question is whether the suit is maintainable, and on the facts above stated we are clearly of opinion that it is. THE case is in essentials on all fours with the case of Dorasinga Tevar V/s. Arunacheam Chetti 23 M. 441. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.