S. CHATTANATHA KARAYALAR vs THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were sureties and not co-obligants under the promissory note, letter of continuity, and hypothecation agreement. The Court interpreted the documents collectively, emphasizing that they must be read together to ascertain the true nature of the liability. The provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act were found inapplicable as the appellant relied on written agreements rather than oral agreements to contradict the promissory note. The High Court's finding was reversed, affirming the appellant's status as a surety.