Skip to content


Sambasiva Aiyar Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.162
AppellantSambasiva Aiyar
RespondentSeethalakshmi Ammal
Excerpt:
contract act (ix of 1872), section 69 - hindu reversioner paying government revenue in respect of estate held by widow--right to recover from widow--'interested,' meaning of. - - 1. in my opinion the decision of the district munsif is clearly wrong......a suit when his contingent interests are endangered.2. here the allegation is that the money was paid by the plaintiff to prevent the land being sold for arrears of revenue and that the defendant defaulted to pay the revenue with the evil motive of defeating the plaintiff's reversionary rights.3. i hold that the plaintiff was interested in the payment of the revenue which the defendant was bound by law as puttadar to pay, and that under section 69 of the indian contract act, he is entitled to recover. the plaintiff will have a decree as prayed for with costs throughout.
Judgment:

1. In my opinion the decision of the District Munsif is clearly wrong. The defendant, the widow, was ex parte. Assuming that the plaintiff is, as he alleges, the next reversioner, he has such an interest as entitles him to bring a suit when his contingent interests are endangered.

2. Here the allegation is that the money was paid by the plaintiff to prevent the land being sold for arrears of revenue and that the defendant defaulted to pay the revenue with the evil motive of defeating the plaintiff's reversionary rights.

3. I hold that the plaintiff was interested in the payment of the revenue which the defendant was bound by law as puttadar to pay, and that under Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act, he is entitled to recover. The plaintiff will have a decree as prayed for with costs throughout.


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