The Calcutta Law Journal Short Notes of the Cases Articles and Other Matters January 1 1917

Rolfe B. observed as the reason for such a view that were we to decide otkerwise it might lead to this absurdity that supposing the plaintiff Wallace to have received a full discharge of the debt yet he might if he survived the other parties recover the whole of it over again." On the contrary the doctrine of Equity seems to be that suet; payment is not a good discharge of the debt. [...] The wording of section 33 of the Contract Act was the principal ground of the decsion in Barber Maran v. Ramana Goundan (2) where it was held that in the absence of fraud a release of a mortgagor by one of two mortgagees on payment to him of the mortgage debt discharges the mortgagor from all liability under the mortgage to the other mortgagee. [...] (b) Although accoring to the last clause in section 33 of the Indian Contract Act 'an offer of the performance to one of several joint promisees has the same legal consequences as an offer to all of them ' such offer does not amount to a discharge of the obligation and hence it is difficult to concede why the fact of tender to one of two joint promisees being good for certain purposes such a [...] But this decision appears to have been based upon the peculiar facts of the case as the money avanced on the security of the mortgage formed part of thee proceeds of an estate to which the mortgagees were under the will of the deceased person entitled as tenants-in-common. [...] that if the promisor performs the entire promise to one of the joint promisees and the latter thereupon gives a discharge the promisor is thereby released from the whole obligation by the principle of section 38 which includes also the case of an accepted offer.' The argument that section 38 last para.