STATE OF MYSORE Vs. TARACHAND VENKATACHAND SHAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the decree passed in Spl. Suit No.14 of 1967 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore. The said suit was originally instituted as OS. No. 17 of 1966 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bijapur and it came to be transferred to the file of the Civil Judge, at Bagalkot. The suit was instituted on 10-6-1966.

(2.) The suit was instituted by the State of Mysore, the Director of Agriculture and the Cotton Superintendent, Bijapur, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,000 together with interest thereon jointly and severally from defendants 1 to 14. The case of the plaintiffs was that defendant 1 borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000 from the Cotton Superintendent Dharwar, in the year 1951 on two dates. Oh 7-7-1951 he borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000 and on 20-7-1951 he borrowed the remaining sum of Rs. 15,000. In lieu thereof he executed a bond on 19-9-1951 exhibit P-2 in favour of the Cotton Superintendent undertaking to repay the sum of Rs.20,000 borrowed by him as mentioned earlier, along with interest at 71/2 per cent per annum. That on 22-4-1952 defendant 1 repaid a sum of Rs.5,000 and executed another bond on 2-8-1952 Ext.P-1 in favour of the Cotton Superintendent acknowledging the outstanding liability under the bond dt. 19-9-1951 and undertaking to repay the same before 31-10-1952. On that occasion he offered defendant 2 and one Vittalchand Talati as sureties for the repayment of the said amount. It is stated that Vittalchand Talati died before the institution of the suit leaving b'ehind him defendants 3 to 14 as his legal representatives. The above mentioned sureties were alleged to have agreed to become the sureties for the due payment of the amount payable by defendant. It appears that the plaintiffs resorted to certain proceedings under the Land Revenue Code for recovery of the amount due by defendant 1 under the above transaction on his committing default in payment of 'the same. It is not disputed that these prpceedings became infructuous and the plaintiffs were not able to recover any amount from defendant 1 in these proceedings. Thereupon the plaintiffs instituted the above suit for recovery of the outstanding principal amount of Rs.15,000 and the interest thereon from defendants.

(3.) The principal contention urged by the defendants in the written statement was that the agreement entered into by them was not in conformity with Art.299(1)) of the Contitution of India and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover any amount thereunder. The fact that defendant 1 received the sum of Rs.15,000 under the transaction relied on by " the plaintiffs and evidenced by Exts.P-1 and P-2 was however not disputed. The trial Court was of the opinion that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the provisions of Art.299(1) of the Constitution had not been complied with. It accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Court below, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal, Sri N, Venkatachala, the learned Additional Govt. Advocaate, contended that although there had not been compliance with Art,299(1) of the Constitution in this case, the suit should have been decreed by the Court below at least against defendant 1 who had received the benefit under the transaction on the basis of S.70 of the Indian Contract Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S.70 of the Act reads as follows: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.