Skip to content


Babu Makund Lal Vs. Bhola Rai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All419
AppellantBabu Makund Lal
RespondentBhola Rai and ors.
Excerpt:
- - we are clearly of opinion that article 111, lim. the defendant did not pay that amount and there was clearly a breach of a covenant in writing registered within the meaning of article 116. the limitation provided for a suit under this article is six years from the data when the contract is broken. the suit having been instituted within six years of the breach of the covenant is therefore clearly within time. there is clearly a fallacy underlying this argument. the plaintiff had directed the defendant to spend the money for the plaintiff in a particular way but the defendant had failed to do so......by the court below. we are clearly of opinion that article 111, lim. act, is not applicable to the suit. article 111 provides for a suit by a vendor of immovable property for personal payment of unpaid purchase money. there was no covenant in the sale deed dated 12th july 1926, for payment of rs. 1,300 to the plaintiff personally. article 111 is therefore not applicable to the suit in hand. in our opinion the suit was in the nature of a claim 'for compensation for the breach of a contract in writing registered.' there was a registered covenant that the defendant would pay rs. 1,300 to a number of specified creditors. the defendant did not pay that amount and there was clearly a breach of a covenant in writing registered within the meaning of article 116. the limitation provided for a.....
Judgment:

Sen, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant and it arises out of a suit for recovery of unpaid purchase money together with interest. On 12th July 1926, Bhola Ral and others executed a sale deed of some zamindari share in favour of Rai Bahadur Babu Makund Lal appellant for Rs. 1,608-12-0. Rs. 308-12-0 were paid in cash at the time of registration. Rs. 1,300 were left with the ' vendee for payment of certain creditors.

2. It may be incidentally mentioned that the property sold was not burdened with any charge or mortgage in favour of the creditors for whom the sum of Rs. 1,300 was left.

3. The defendant vendee did not pay the amount to the creditors within a reasonable time and the result of it was that the present action was instituted on 4th October 1929.

4. The suit was resisted on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 11l, Lim. Act and that the plaintiff had not been compelled to pay the amount to the creditors and that no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff inasmuch as the plaintiff had not to pay the money to the creditors. These pleas were repelled by the Court below. We are clearly of opinion that Article 111, Lim. Act, is not applicable to the suit. Article 111 provides for a suit by a vendor of immovable property for personal payment of unpaid purchase money. There was no covenant in the sale deed dated 12th July 1926, for payment of Rs. 1,300 to the plaintiff personally. Article 111 is therefore not applicable to the suit in hand. In our opinion the suit was in the nature of a claim 'for compensation for the breach of a contract in writing registered.' There was a registered covenant that the defendant would pay Rs. 1,300 to a number of specified creditors. The defendant did not pay that amount and there was clearly a breach of a covenant in writing registered within the meaning of Article 116. The limitation provided for a suit under this article is six years from the data when the contract is broken. The suit having been instituted within six years of the breach of the covenant is therefore clearly within time.

5. It is next contended that no cause of action accrued for the suit because the plaintiff had not been compelled to pay the sum claimed to his creditors. There is clearly a fallacy underlying this argument. The. money belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had directed the defendant to spend the money for the plaintiff in a particular way but the defendant had failed to do so. The result of this act was that the plaintiff was damnified to this extent that the interest on the debts payable by the plaintiff was mounting up from day to day. Therefore there can be no doubt that a cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff and he was justified in claiming a refund of the money which belonged to him and which did not belong to the vendee. We overrule this plea. The result is that we dismiss this appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C.


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