Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case, the appliance of section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) was in question.
Section 70 of the Act speaks about the requirement of a person enjoying the advantage of a non-gratuitous act. consistent with this section, a person who enjoys the advantage of a non-gratuitous act done lawfully by another person becomes susceptible to compensate such person with reference to the non-gratuitous act done. During this case, the rule of law that no-one should benefit at the expense of another was upheld.
Facts:
The Parayankulattur tank irrigated eleven villages. Earlier, all the 11 villages were zamindari villages. Later, seven of these villages were severed from zamindari and have become ordinary ryotwari villages under the control of the government. The tank was in need of repairs and therefore the Government administered the repairs for the preservation of the tank.The government sought proportional contribution from the appellant zamindars towards the prices of the repair.
The appellants denied their liability contending that the govt was sure to do the repairs at its own expense and not entitled to charge the zamindars. The question during this case was whether the zamindars who were proprietors of the villages irrigated by the tank might be held responsible for the expenses of its repair incurred by the government.
Judgment:
The Court while considering the appellant's argument that there was no contract between the appellants and therefore the respondents which could produce to any joint liability which could successively produce to action for contribution mentioned the case, Leigh v. Dickenson L.R. 15 Q.B.D. 60 during which the parties were tenants-in-common of a house, and therefore the claim made was in respect of cash expended on substantial and proper repairs.
The statement of law made during this case that where an outlay is within the nature of salvage, all curious about the thing saved are sure to contribute was held to be incorrect in various decisions made by the court later like Lampleigh v. Brathwaite 1 Smith’s Leading cases 160. As a general rule, a person can't be made responsible for goods and services rendered under circumstances giving him no option of declining or accepting.
The Court distinguished this case from the earlier cited case on the grounds of dissimilar facts and therefore the non-availability of the remedy of partition. There was no common obligation to repair the tank because the appellants and therefore the respondents were separately susceptible to their tenants for the upkeep of the tank and not jointly.
The exception which covers the case of joint debtors where one debtor pays the entire debt was found to be not applicable here. If relied upon English authorities, the liability of the appellants would be non-existent within the instant case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824