Skip to content


Lachman Das Vs. Chater and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR10All29
AppellantLachman Das
RespondentChater and anr.
Excerpt:
.....1872 (contract act), section 74, exception. - - i am of opinion that the failure to exhibit the inventory was a breach of a condition of the bond. to take a case, assume that an administrator having given a bond like that in this case has fully administered the estate and paid all the creditors the utmost farthing owing to them, and has handed over to the legal representatives the balance which remained in his hands after deduction of the debts of the intestate. the inconvenience which the plaintiff and the others may have suffered was not caused by the breach complained of, but by reason of their having failed to send in their claims and accept the dividends which were offered to them. this being so, the delay in exhibiting the inventory in the district judge's office, though it..........there would be in that case no creditors interested in the performance of the conditions of the bond. by interested i mean pecuniarily interested, and the only person who could be interested would be the heir; but neither the creditor nor the heir would have suffered loss by breach of the conditions. if under such circumstances the assignee of the bond would be entitled to recover the full amount mentioned in the bond, what was to become of it it could not be paid to the creditors, who had no longer any interest and had suffered no loss. the plaintiff could not retain it himself, unless he could show that he had been damnified. the heir could not be entitled in justice or common sense to be paid money recovered as compensation for a damage he had not suffered. it appears to me that in.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J.

1. This is an action on an administration bond. The defendants are the administrators; the bond was for Rs. 7,000, and one of the conditions was that the administrators should make a true inventory of the estate and exhibit the same at the Court of the Judge of Agra on or before the 22nd January 1884. The condition to which I have referred is the one relied on in this appeal. As a matter of fact the administrator did not exhibit his inventory in the Court of Agra until February 1885. The bond was a bond given in accordance with Section 256 of the Indian Succession Act. It was assigned to the plaintiff under Section 257 of the Act. The case came on for trial before the Subordinate Judge of Agra. He dismissed the suit, thinking that no substantial breach of the bond had been proved. I am of opinion that the failure to exhibit the inventory was a breach of a condition of the bond. It is an important matter in the administration of an estate that the administrator should file his account in proper time. It is contended that as there had been a breach, which has been admitted, of the bond, the amount recoverable was the sum of Rs. 7,000 mentioned in the bond. It is said that the bond in question was one which came within the exception of Section 74 of the Contract Act, and consequently the whole sum mentioned in the bond became payable on the breach. I think the bond referred to in that exception is of the class of which an illustration is given in the illustrations to the Section, and that the bond in question does not come within that exception. If an administration-bond came within that exception, and on breach of any of the conditions of the bond the whole amount of the bond became payable, the result might be that the creditors and heirs of an intestate might receive more, so far as the creditors were concerned, than their debts, and so far as the heirs were concerned, than the balance of the estate in the hands of the administrators. To take a case, assume that an administrator having given a bond like that in this case has fully administered the estate and paid all the creditors the utmost farthing owing to them, and has handed over to the legal representatives the balance which remained in his hands after deduction of the debts of the intestate. There would be in that case no creditors interested in the performance of the conditions of the bond. By interested I mean pecuniarily interested, and the only person who could be interested would be the heir; but neither the creditor nor the heir would have suffered loss by breach of the conditions. If under such circumstances the assignee of the bond would be entitled to recover the full amount mentioned in the bond, what was to become of it It could not be paid to the creditors, who had no longer any interest and had suffered no loss. The plaintiff could not retain it himself, unless he could show that he had been damnified. The heir could not be entitled in justice or common sense to be paid money recovered as compensation for a damage he had not suffered. It appears to me that in an action brought on the breach of a bond of this description the plaintiff cannot recover more damage than he has proved to have resulted to himself or those interested in the bond on which he relies. In this case the plaintiff has not, nor has any one else, suffered any damage whatever. The inconvenience which the plaintiff and the others may have suffered was not caused by the breach complained of, but by reason of their having failed to send in their claims and accept the dividends which were offered to them. I am of opinion that the appeal must be dismissed with costs, and I think it is a case that should never have been brought. It is not contended that the inventory when filed was other than true and complete, nor is it contended that the account was not correct. This being so, the delay in exhibiting the inventory in the District Judge's office, though it would be reprehensible if it could have been avoided, would not, I think, by itself entitle the appellant to succeed in a case like the present to recover the penalty of the administration bond.

Tyrrell, J.

2. I concur.


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