Case Summary : Damodara Mudaliar And Anr. vs Secretary Of State For India

CITATION- (1895) ILR 18 MAD 88
BENCH- A J COLLINS, SHEPHARD
DATE- 18 OCTOBER 1894

BACKGROUND
during this case, the appliance of section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) was in question. Section 70 of the Act speaks about the requirement of person enjoying advantage of non-gratuitous act. consistent with this section, a person who enjoys the advantage of a non-gratuitous act done lawfully by another person becomes susceptible to compensate such person with reference to the non-gratuitous act done. during this case, the rule of law that no-one should benefit at the expense of another was upheld.

FACTS
The Parayankulattur tank irrigated eleven villages. Earlier, all the 11 villages were zamindari villages. Later, seven of these villages were severed from zamindari and have become ordinary ryotwari villages under the control of the govt. The tank was in need of repairs and therefore the Government administered the repairs for the preservation of the tank. the govt sought proportional contribution from the appellant zamindars towards the prices of the repair. The appellants denied their liability contending that the govt was sure to do the repairs at its own expense and not entitled to charge the zamindars. The question during this case was whether the zamindars who were proprietors of the villages irrigated by the tank might be held responsible for the expenses of its repair incurred by the govt.

ARGUMENTS-

APPELLANTS-
The Government was sure to do the repairs of the Parayankulattur tank at its own expense and not entitled to charge the zamindars. The District Judge had not made a good apportionment of the value of the work, having reference to the interests of the govt villages and zamindars’ villages within the irrigation secured by the tank.

RESPONDENT
Under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (1872), the appellants are susceptible to pay the govt because they enjoy the repair of the tank as the tank irrigates the zamindari villages also. The act of repairing the tank wasn’t intended to be a non-gratuitous act by the govt. The appellants were conscious of the repairs being executed and had not disapproved of an equivalent.

JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Court distinguished this case from the aforementioned case on the grounds of dissimilar facts and therefore the non-availability of the remedy of partition. There was no common obligation to repair the tank because the appellants and therefore the respondents were separately susceptible to their tenants for the upkeep of the tank and not jointly. The exception which covers the case of joint debtors where one debtor pays the entire debt was found to be not applicable here. If relied upon English authorities, the liability of the appellants would be non-existent within the instant case. While deciding whether the appellants had enjoyed the advantages of the repair, the Hon’ble Court stated the necessity to determine the irrigable area of the villages owned by the govt and therefore the zamindars, respectively. clear, it appeared that the govt derived more enjoy the repair of the tank than the appellants because the majority of the villages irrigated by the tank were ryotwari villages. The District Judge in his findings stated that the appellants had undoubtedly enjoyed the advantages of the repair. The Hon’ble Court accepted the findings and dismissed the appeal with costs. The appellants were held susceptible to pay the required proportion of the value of the repair of the tank incurred by the respondent.