Skip to content


Bhonda Das Vs. Binda Kuar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All660
AppellantBhonda Das
RespondentBinda Kuar
Excerpt:
act ix of 1872 (contract act), sections 69, 70 - payment of government revenue by person wrongfully in possession of land. - .....he paid on account of revenue. the first court dismissed the suit. the lower appellate court has decreed the claim, and the defendant has appealed. we are of opinion that the appeal must prevail, and the court of first instance has rightly held that the plaintiff, under the circumstances has no right of action. the claim does not fall within the provisions of sections 69 and 70, contract act. the plaintiff was in wrongful possession of the defendant's property, and paid the revenue for his own benefit and on his own account, and the fact that he has been a loser by his wrongful act, or that the defendant has been benefited by the payment he made, will give him no right of suit against her. the case of tiluck chand v. soudamini dasi i.l.r. 4 cal. 566 is very similar, and supports the.....
Judgment:

Oldfield and Brodhurst, JJ.

1. The plaintiff took wrongful possession of the property of his deceased brother, which by right was the inheritance of the defendant, who ultimately established her title and obtained possession. While the plaintiff held possession he collected rents, and paid the Government revenue on the property. The defendant recovered the rents from the tenants, and the plaintiff was obliged to refund the same, and he now sues defendant to recover the sum he paid on account of revenue. The first Court dismissed the suit. The Lower Appellate Court has decreed the claim, and the defendant has appealed. We are of opinion that the appeal must prevail, and the Court of First instance has rightly held that the plaintiff, under the circumstances has no right of action. The claim does not fall within the provisions of Sections 69 and 70, Contract Act. The plaintiff was in wrongful possession of the defendant's property, and paid the revenue for his own benefit and on his own account, and the fact that he has been a loser by his wrongful act, or that the defendant has been benefited by the payment he made, will give him no right of suit against her. The case of Tiluck Chand v. Soudamini Dasi I.L.R. 4 Cal. 566 is very similar, and supports the view we take. We decree the appeal, and set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, and restore that of the first Court, and dismiss the suit with all costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //