Skip to content


Rup Lall Das and anr. Vs. NobIn Chunder Roy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal377
AppellantRup Lall Das and anr.
RespondentNobIn Chunder Roy
Cases ReferredEnayet Hossain v. Muddun Monee Shahoon
Excerpt:
contribution, suit for - government revenue--payment by one co-sharer for another. - .....1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 were joint proprietors of a seven-anna share in a talook, and for this seven-anna share a separate account had been opened, under the provisions of act xi of 1859, in the collectorate. by some mistake upon an arrear of revenue falling due, the whole talook was advertized for sale, but this mistake was afterwards corrected and what was about to be sold for the unpaid balance of revenue was only the seven-anna share just mentioned. the plaintiffs, in order to prevent the sale, paid rs. 87-6-10, which was the amount of the unpaid balance of revenue, and they have brought this suit to recover this amount from the defendants other than defendant 5, who are, as has already been pointed out, the plaintiff's co-sharers in the seven-anna share. the defendant no. 4 had before.....
Judgment:

Field, J.

1. This is a case somewhat complicated by details, but the point which has to be decided is a very simple one when eliminated from these details. It appears beyond all doubt, and in fact it has now been admitted before us, that the plaintiffs and defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 were joint proprietors of a seven-anna share in a talook, and for this seven-anna share a separate account had been opened, under the provisions of Act XI of 1859, in the Collectorate. By some mistake upon an arrear of revenue falling due, the whole talook was advertized for sale, but this mistake was afterwards corrected and what was about to be sold for the unpaid balance of revenue was only the seven-anna share just mentioned. The plaintiffs, in order to prevent the sale, paid Rs. 87-6-10, which was the amount of the unpaid balance of revenue, and they have brought this suit to recover this amount from the defendants other than defendant 5, who are, as has already been pointed out, the plaintiff's co-sharers in the seven-anna share. The defendant No. 4 had before the transaction which has given rise to this case purchased a nine-anna share out of 5 annas 15 gundas treated as 16 annas, that is, 5 annas 15 gundas out of the seven annas share. It has been found as a fact by the. lower Courts that defendant No. 4 had paid his quota of revenue in respect of the nine-sixteenths of 5 annas 15 gundas so purchased by him, and of which he was the proprietor when the seven-anna share fell into arrears. The present appeal is concerned with another share consisting of 11 gundas 3 1/4 cowries, that is, a share of the seven annas share. Now, in respect of this 11 gundas 3 1/4 cowries share the defendant No. 4 was a mortgagee under a mortgage granted by defendant No. 1, and after the payment by the plaintiffs of the balance of revenue, the defendant No. 4 became the purchaser at an execution sale of this 11 gundas 3i cowries share. The Judge in the Court below, applying the principle laid down in the case of Enayet Hossain v. Muddun Monee Shahoon 14 B.L.R. 155; S.C. 22 W.R. 411 has directed that the revenue paid by the plaintiffs be a charge upon this 11 gundas 3 1/4 cowries share. It is now contended before us that the principle of that case ought not to be applied to the present case, because in that case the whole estate was about to be sold, and in the case before us it was merely a share, i.e., the seven annas share which was about to be sold. It appears to us that this really makes no difference. The principle on which that case proceeded was, that inasmuch as by the payment of the Government revenue the estate was saved and protected from sale, the person who afterwards became the owner of the estate, and was benefited by this protection, could not justly say that the money paid to effect that protection ought not to be a charge on the thing protected, and we think that that principle is just as applicable to a share of an estate as it is to the whole of an estate. An argument has been raised upon Section 54 of the Sale Act, but we do not see that that has any application to the case now before us. The defendant No. 4 having purchased has become the assignee by law of defendant No. 1, and inasmuch as the amount of revenue paid to protect the seven annas share from sale would justly be made a charge upon the 11 gundas 3 1/4 cowries share in the hands of defendant No. 1, it is equitable that it should be a charge upon the same share in the hands of the assignee by law of the same defendant No. 1. We think, therefore, there are no grounds for this appeal, which will be dismissed with costs. We may observe that no question has been raised by either party as to there not being a personal decree against defendant No. 1, and the amount being leviable upon the share only in case it cannot be levied from him personally. This judgment will admittedly govern appeals Nos. 466 and 467 of 1881.

McDonell, J.

2. I am unable to distinguish this case from that of Enayet Hossain v. Muddun Monee Shahoon 14 B.L.R. 155; S.C. 22 W.R. 411 and following that ruling I concur in dismissing these appeals.


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