P.SUBBIAH MOOPPANAR Vs. S.S.VENKATARAMA AYYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts in this revision petition are not in dispute. Defendants 1 to 3 are usufructuary mortgagees of the plaint -schedule, property. The fourth defendant is the -mort -gagor. The fourth defendant sold the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 18000 under a registered sale deed dated 10 -2 -1947. Under the sale deed, a sum of Rs. 3500 was reserved with the plaintiff to be paid to the mortgagees. Accordingly he paid the amount to the mortgagees on 10 -4 -1947. The mortgagees though they were in pos -session during faslls 1355 and 1356 did not pay to the zamindar the cist for 1355 and 1356. After the plaintiff took possession of the properties he paid on 4 -9 -1949 a sum of Rs. '165 -15 -9 to the zamindar being, the arrears of cist due In respect of the othi for faslis 1355 and 1356. After paying the amount to the Zamindar, he filed S. C. 8. No. 789 of. 1951 on the file of the court of the District Mutislf; Ambasamudram, for the recovery of the said amount from defendants 1 to 3. The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit, on the ground that the plaintiff paid the cist voluntarily' and therefore, he would not be entitled to re -cover the same. The plaintiff has filed the above revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that Section 69, Contract Act directly applies to the facts of this case. Section 69 reads : 'A person who is interested in the payment, ofmoney which another Is bound by law to payand who therefore pays it is entitled to be re -imbursed by the other.' It is conceded that defendants 1 to 3 were bound by law to pay the cist to the zamindar. But It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the plaintiff is not a person interested in the payment of the money. The~ -short question, therefore, is what is the connotation of the word 'interested' in Section 69 of the Act. The cases cited at the Bar are not directly in point. But they may be referred to appreciate the contention raised.

(3.) IN - 'Subramania Iyer v. Vengappa Reddi,' 19 Mad L. J. 750 (E), a Division Bench of this court consisting of Benson and Krishnaswami Aiyar JJ. held that the word 'interested' was wide enough to include, the apprehension of any kind of loss or inconvenience or at any rate, of any detriment capable of being assessed in money.