Madras High Court
Doraisami Padayachi And Anr. vs Vaithilinga Padayachi (Dead) And Ors. on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: 41IND. CAS.581, (1917)32MLJ422
ORDER
1. Assuming as stated in the order of reference, that the meaning of the letter was that the writer promised to pay the amount which might be found due by the arbitrator on taking the accounts of the partnership, we are clearly of opinion that this was not a promise to pay a debt within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act. We think that the word "debt" used in this context must be taken to have been used in is ordinary meaning of a sum payable in respect of a money demand recoverable by action. See the observations of Subramania Aiyar J. in Sabju Sahib v. Noordin Sahib (1899) I.L.R. 22 M 139. We accordingly answer the question in the negative.