Skip to content


Payida Ramakrishnayya and ors. Vs. Barrey Nagarazu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad152
AppellantPayida Ramakrishnayya and ors.
RespondentBarrey Nagarazu and anr.
Excerpt:
- - clearly, therefore, the defendants were in the position of trespassers. the plaintiffs, in order to entitle them to reimbursement, rely upon section 69 of the indian contract act and state that since they paid the dues payable by the defendants as well, they are entitled to get back that amount. the plaintiffs' remedy clearly will be to sue the defendants for mesne profits......certain dues had to be paid to the zemindar. the plaintiffs purchased the defendants' portion and paid the dues to the zamindar for the whole property. they now claim to recover from the defendants that portion of the dues payable for the share of the defendants.2. the defendants, after the purchase by the plaintiffs of their share, remained in possession of the property. clearly, therefore, the defendants were in the position of trespassers. the plaintiffs, in order to entitle them to reimbursement, rely upon section 69 of the indian contract act and state that since they paid the dues payable by the defendants as well, they are entitled to get back that amount. for the application of section 69, it is necessary to show that the defendants are the persons bound in law to pay. prom what.....
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. The plaintiffs and defendants were co-sharers of certain property on which certain dues had to be paid to the zemindar. The plaintiffs purchased the defendants' portion and paid the dues to the zamindar for the whole property. They now claim to recover from the defendants that portion of the dues payable for the share of the defendants.

2. The defendants, after the purchase by the plaintiffs of their share, remained in possession of the property. Clearly, therefore, the defendants were in the position of trespassers. The plaintiffs, in order to entitle them to reimbursement, rely upon Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act and state that since they paid the dues payable by the defendants as well, they are entitled to get back that amount. For the application of Section 69, it is necessary to show that the defendants are the persons bound in law to pay. Prom what I have already said, it would appear that the defendants are trespassers pure and simple and are not persons bound in law to pay dues to the zamindar. The plaintiffs, therefore, have no cause of action against the defendants for reimbursement under Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act. The plaintiffs' remedy clearly will be to sue the defendants for mesne profits. I find the District Munsif says in the beginning of his judgment that the plaintiffs had already filed a suit O.S. No. 140 of 1916, in which a decree was given to them for mesne profits. If so, the plaintiffs have, neither in equity nor in law, any claim against the defendants.

3. The decree of the lower Court is right and the revision petition is dismissed with costs.


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