1. The 1st defendant, Ponnnsamy Nadar, owed the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 87,080 under a decree. The 2nd defendant, his divided nephew, owed him a sum of Rs. 6,000 under another decree. The first four defendants owed Rs. 6,920 under two decrees to the plaintiff. The four defendants accepted the two debts due by Ponnusamy Nadar and Ratnasamy Nadar alone under the two decrees as binding on them, paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 and agreed to pay another sum of Rs. 12,500 before the 25th of July 1904. The plaintiff agreed to accept this amount of Rs. 22,500 in discharge of the entire debt. If default be made 'in paying in full' the amount of Rs. 12,500 with interest before the due dates, the defendants agreed to pay not only the balance but also the amount of Rs. 27,500 which together with the Rs. 22,500 made up the debt of Rs. 50,000. It is admitted that out of the sum of Rs, 12,500 and interest about Rs. 11,700 was paid, the balance of about Rs. 1,500 was tendered only two or three days after the expiry of the time. The plaintiff accordingly claims the full amount of Rs. 27,500 and the balance including interest, Rs. 1,447-10-5. The debt admittedly due by the defendants under decrees to which they all were parties was only Rs. 6,920. It is possible that the plaintiff might have recovered the debt due by Ratnasamy Nadar from the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 as they were junior members of the family of which he was the head. Whether he could have enforced that debt against the 1st defendant docs not appear. It is stated on behalf of the plaintiff that as the 1st and 2nd defendants were carrying on Abkary business together, the 2nd defendant was liable to pay the decree debt due by the 1st defendant. But the claim is sufficiently doubtful to form the basis of a compromise and the acceptance by all the defendants of the debt due by the 1st and 2nd defendants is a valid consideration for the plaintiff agreeing to take a smaller amount from all the four defendants. In this view the stipulation that the sum of Rs. 27,500 is to be paid if a balance of even one rupee out of Rs. 12,500 remained unpaid is clearly a penalty and only intended to enforce payment on or before the 25th July 1904. The authorities cited refer to cases of voluntary bounty by the creditors where they offer to receive smaller amounts in discharge of higher sums admittedly due, if paid before a certain date. In the present case, the debt was admitted to be due by the executants of the bond only if the plaintiff consented to receive the lesser amount.
2. We think the decision is right and dismiss the appeal with costs.