ASA RAM Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a nice question of law. We have however no difficulty in deciding it. The first two defendants executed a simple money bond in favour of plaintiffs-appellants, in consideration of a debt owed by their father, but was one which had become time barred at the date of the execution of the bond in suit. The claim failed in the first Court, but succeeded in the lower appellate Court. Defendant 3, who was a minor brother of the other two defendants and who was not a party to the bond, was exempted from the claim. The learned Subordinate Judge, in decreeing the claim, directed that the amount of the decree should be realized from the 2/3rds share of the joint family property which belonged to the first two defendants.

(2.) The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal and it is contended that there should have been a personal decree against first two defendants, as the executants of the bond.

(3.) Reliance has been placed on Section 25, Contract Act. It is argued that defendants 1 and 2 agreed to pay a time-barred debt and therefore entered into valid contract with the plaintiffs and, as they agreed to pay personally, the personal agreement should have been enforced by the Court below.