Commercial account signature and novation can create enforceable debt liability where surrounding circumstances show assumed obligation.

A signature on a commercial account statement may amount to a binding promise to pay an existing debt where the surrounding circumstances show an intention to assume liability. The opening of a fresh account, the altered interest terms, the further advance, and the commercial relationship between the parties supported that construction, and the alternative basis of liability was sufficiently pleaded and proved. The substituted liability also provided valid consideration through novation, reinforced by the fresh advance and changed accounting position. The decree against the respondent was restored, and liability was enforced against his estate to the extent of the inherited property.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the signing of the hatchita by the partner constituted a binding promise to pay the earlier debt and the fresh advance, and whether the appellants could rely on that alternative basis of liability despite having pleaded a broader partnership case; (ii) whether there was consideration to support the promise.

Issue (i): whether the signing of the hatchita by the partner constituted a binding promise to pay the earlier debt and the fresh advance, and whether the appellants could rely on that alternative basis of liability despite having pleaded a broader partnership case.

Analysis: The document was treated as an acknowledgment in a new accounting arrangement, not as a mere verification of an old liability. The surrounding circumstances, including the opening of the fresh account, the altered rate of interest, the advance of the further sum, and the admitted commercial relationship between the parties, showed that the signature was intended to create liability for the stated balance. The pleading was sufficient because facts, not legal inferences, are required to be pleaded, and the alternative basis of liability was fairly supported by the plaint and evidence.

Conclusion: The signature on the hatchita amounted to a promise to pay the stated debt, and the appellants were entitled to rely on that basis of liability.

Issue (ii): whether there was consideration to support the promise.

Analysis: The substitution of a new liability in the form of a fresh partnership arrangement and changed accounting position operated as novation, which is good consideration. The altered terms of interest and the fresh advance of Rs. 7,000 also furnished consideration. The earlier liability was not simply duplicated; it was replaced by a different commercial liability enforceable against the promisor.

Conclusion: There was sufficient consideration to support the promise.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree against the respondent was restored, and liability was enforced against his estate to the extent of the property inherited by his sons.

Ratio Decidendi: A signature on a commercial account statement may constitute a binding promise to pay an existing debt where the surrounding circumstances show an intention to assume liability, and the substitution or alteration of the contractual liability, including a fresh advance or changed terms, furnishes valid consideration by way of novation.

---