Skip to content


Kunj Lal and anr. Vs. Munshi Batuk Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in120Ind.Cas.552
AppellantKunj Lal and anr.
RespondentMunshi Batuk Prasad
Excerpt:
.....by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - ' in the present case before a decree was passed batuk prasad agreed to pay the decretal amount of decree to be passed in case the defendant of that suit failed to do so......this court to understand his observations. section 135 of the contract act lays down: 'a contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, by which the creditor makes a composition with, or promises to give time to, or not to sue, the principal debtor, discharges the surety, unless the surety assents to such contract.' in the present case before a decree was passed batuk prasad agreed to pay the decretal amount of decree to be passed in case the defendant of that suit failed to do so. the creditor entered into a composition with the defendant and promised to give him three months' time to pay up the decretal amount. this was done without obtaining the assent of batuk prasad. batuk prasad was, therefore, discharged from his liability under the provisions of the law quoted above......
Judgment:

Dalai, J.

1. The law on the subject is very clear. The lower Appellate Court ought to have quoted Section 135 of the Contract Act to enable this Court to understand his observations. Section 135 of the Contract Act lays down: 'A contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, by which the creditor makes a composition with, or promises to give time to, or not to sue, the principal debtor, discharges the surety, unless the surety assents to such contract.' In the present case before a decree was passed Batuk Prasad agreed to pay the decretal amount of decree to be passed in case the defendant of that suit failed to do so. The creditor entered into a composition with the defendant and promised to give him three months' time to pay up the decretal amount. This was done without obtaining the assent of Batuk Prasad. Batuk Prasad was, therefore, discharged from his liability under the provisions of the law quoted above. This appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //