Skip to content


Srirangam Municipal Council Reprsented by Its Chairman K. Singam Aiyangar Vs. Bodi Alias Anganna Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Mad162; (1923)45MLJ164
AppellantSrirangam Municipal Council Reprsented by Its Chairman K. Singam Aiyangar
RespondentBodi Alias Anganna Naidu
Cases ReferredYoung and Co. v. Mayor
Excerpt:
- - it is argued before me that though no claim could be made on the basis of the written contract a decree should have been given at any rate on the footing of executed consideration, the defendant having been found to have enjoyed the right of collecting the toll for the whole year. i think the plaintiff municipality is entitled to a decree as sued for on the footing that defendant has enjoyed the right of collecting the tolls for the whole year contracted for and is liable as on an implied contract......in force. it is argued before me that though no claim could be made on the basis of the written contract a decree should have been given at any rate on the footing of executed consideration, the defendant having been found to have enjoyed the right of collecting the toll for the whole year.2. there is no doubt a conflict of authority on the point. so far as the english law is concerned it must now be taken as settled by lawford v. bellericay rural council (1903) 1 k.b. 772 in favour of such decrees being given. the learned judges refer to young and co. v. mayor etc., of royal leamington, spa (1883) 8 a.c. 517 which was taken to have laid down the opposite view and point out that the question was expressly reserved there. in douglass v. rhyl urban council (1913) 2 ch. 407 jayce, j......
Judgment:

Krishnan, J.

1. In this case the defendant bought in auction

the right to collect fees or tolls for slaughtering cattle in the slaughter-house of the plaintiff Corporation. This suit is for the balance money due from him. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that no written contract was executed as required by Section 45 of the old District Municipalities Act IV of 1884 which was in force. It is argued before me that though no claim could be made on the basis of the written contract a decree should have been given at any rate on the footing of executed consideration, the defendant having been found to have enjoyed the right of collecting the toll for the whole year.

2. There is no doubt a conflict of authority on the point. So far as the English Law is concerned it must now be taken as settled by Lawford v. Bellericay Rural Council (1903) 1 K.B. 772 in favour of such decrees being given. The learned Judges refer to Young and Co. v. Mayor etc., of Royal Leamington, Spa (1883) 8 A.C. 517 which was taken to have laid down the opposite view and point out that the question was expressly reserved there. In Douglass v. Rhyl Urban Council (1913) 2 Ch. 407 jayce, J. holds that the case in (1903) 1 K.B. settles the English Law on the point.

3. As regards the authorities in our High Court the case in Raman Chetti v. The Municipal* Council of Kumbakonam I.L.R. (1907) M. 290 does not really deal with this question. The observation in Ramaswamy Chetty v. The Municipal Council, Tanjore I.L.R.(1906) M. 360 is based on Young and Co. v. Mayor etc. of Royal Leamington Spa (1883) L.R. 8 A.C. 513 which has now been explained away and is in the nature of an obiter. I do not propose to refer to the other Indian cases. I think the plaintiff Municipality is entitled to a decree as sued for on the footing that defendant has enjoyed the right of collecting the tolls for the whole year contracted for and is liable as on an implied contract.

4. The Civil Rvision Petition is allowed and the decree of the lower Court is set aside and a decree given to the plaintiff as sued for with costs in this Court and the lower Court.


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