P.V. MUTHUSWAMI AYYAR Vs. A. VELAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner became the owner of a half share in a well which had long been in disuse. There were two other co -sharers, each of whom had a quarter share in the well. The plaintiff was in a position to make the necessary expenditure to put the well into repair; and he sent notice to the other two sharers asking them to contribute towards the repair of the well, so that they would all be able to use it and with its water raise a second crop on the land -which they had not been able to do hitherto. One of the sharers whose share was subsequently acquired by the petitioner said that he was not interested in the well because his land was heavily mortgaged. The respondent said that she did not propose doing anything in the matter; but that if the plaintiff chose to do it she had no objection. The petitioner sent demands to her for payment of contribution before the work was started; but she did not reply. Later on, while the work was being executed, he sent further notices to which she replied that she could not contribute. The petitioner thereupon completed the work and filed this suit for contribution from the respondent, claiming under Section 70 of the Contract, Act. The lower Court held that although the respondent stood to benefit by the work and that the petitioner did not intend to do the work gratuitously, yet he found that it could not be said that the petitioner did the work" for the respondent." He therefore dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE argument of the learned District Munsiff is supported by some observations in Viswanatha Vijaya Kumara Bangaroo v. R.G. Orr, (1917) 45 I.C.786, to this effect:

(3.) THE defendant was therefore entitled to succeed, although on a different ground from that on which the lower Court dismissed the suit. The petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.