https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274775 The court held that defendant 2 was equally liable with defendant 1 for the suit amount under Section 128 of the Contract Act. Defendant 2 was found responsible for breaching the contract and his liability as a surety arose when defendant 1 failed to pay the debt. The court set aside the previous decision and restored the decree against both defendants, awarding costs of the appeal to the plaintiff. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 1928 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Sep 2018 14:58:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274775 The court held that defendant 2 was equally liable with defendant 1 for the suit amount under Section 128 of the Contract Act. Defendant 2 was found responsible for breaching the contract and his liability as a surety arose when defendant 1 failed to pay the debt. The court set aside the previous decision and restored the decree against both defendants, awarding costs of the appeal to the plaintiff. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Aug 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274775