Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. I feel convinced that the Legislature did not intend this limitation but that it intended to embody the law to be found in the Mercantile Law Amendment Act and to make no distinction between sureties in a bilateral contract and those in a trilateral contract but I am not prepared to hold that Section 145 can be construed as giving effect to that intention. The plaintiff must therefore fall back on Section 140 where his rights are entirely statutory. This section - gives him his suit on the original obligation but subject to the same limitations as affect the creditor. This being so it does become necessary to have findings on the issues above referred to. I would like to add that I see no hardship in a surety being enabled by law to become a creditor without consent of the original debtor. Since the Judicature Act, all choses in action have been transferable without consent of the debtor and even prior to the Act, the Courts of Equity recognised equitable assignments without such consent; vide Brandt v. Dunlop Rubber & Co. (1905) A.C. 454 and the law in this country has followed the English law up to the date of the Amending Act to the Transfer of Property Act, Act II of 1909 which has even gone beyond the English Statutory Law.