Barber Maran and Another v Ramana Gound
Barber Maran and Another v. Ramana Goundan and Another Madras High Court
Year:1897
Bench Strength:2
Facts:
Defendant made a payment to a party that was an agent in that behalf of the plaintiff. It is not suggested that there was any fraud on the part of the defendants, who made the payment.
Issue:
1.Whether a payment made to one of two persons jointly entitled under mortgage bond can be pleaded as a valid discharge of the debt in an action brought by the other person interested in the bond?
Arguments for the Appellant Defendant.
Payment to one joint creditor was a valid discharge of the debt as against the other. As under section 38 of the Contract Act, ‘An offer to one of several joint promisees has the same legal consequences as an offer to all of them. In the first part of the section it is provided that where an offer of performance has been made and not accepted, the promisor is not responsible for non-performance. Follows that when a legal tender has been made to one of two joint promisees and refused by him, the promisor is discharged from liability in respect of his promise.
Arguments for the Respondent Plaintiff
Section 45 of the Act, by declaring the right of the several joint promisees to performance makes it incumbent on the debtor to satisfy them all before obtaining a complete discharge.
Creditor being a mortgagee makes a material difference.
A J COLLINS, SHEPHARD
With regard to section45, it cannot be seen that the declaration that the several joint promisees are entitled to performance is otherwise than consistent with English law or that unless it be construed as converting the joint rights under a contract into several rights, it conflicts with the last paragraph of section 38. To put that construction on the section would amount to saying that, where a contract is made in favour of more than one person, they must be taken to be severally entitled under it, for they cannot be jointly and
Year:1897
Bench Strength:2
Facts:
Defendant made a payment to a party that was an agent in that behalf of the plaintiff. It is not suggested that there was any fraud on the part of the defendants, who made the payment.
Issue:
1.Whether a payment made to one of two persons jointly entitled under mortgage bond can be pleaded as a valid discharge of the debt in an action brought by the other person interested in the bond?
Arguments for the Appellant Defendant.
Payment to one joint creditor was a valid discharge of the debt as against the other. As under section 38 of the Contract Act, ‘An offer to one of several joint promisees has the same legal consequences as an offer to all of them. In the first part of the section it is provided that where an offer of performance has been made and not accepted, the promisor is not responsible for non-performance. Follows that when a legal tender has been made to one of two joint promisees and refused by him, the promisor is discharged from liability in respect of his promise.
Arguments for the Respondent Plaintiff
Section 45 of the Act, by declaring the right of the several joint promisees to performance makes it incumbent on the debtor to satisfy them all before obtaining a complete discharge.
Creditor being a mortgagee makes a material difference.
A J COLLINS, SHEPHARD
With regard to section45, it cannot be seen that the declaration that the several joint promisees are entitled to performance is otherwise than consistent with English law or that unless it be construed as converting the joint rights under a contract into several rights, it conflicts with the last paragraph of section 38. To put that construction on the section would amount to saying that, where a contract is made in favour of more than one person, they must be taken to be severally entitled under it, for they cannot be jointly and