RAMALINGATHUDAYAN Vs. UNNAMALAI ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. suit instituted in forma pauperis was settled out of Court on the terms that if a Court- fee wore eventually levied, Rs. 250 should be paid to by the plaintiff and the balance by the defendant, the present appellant.

(2.) An order was subsequently made by the Court against the present respondent, who was the widow of the 2nd plaintiff in that suit, for payment of the Court-fee out of the assets in her hands belonging to the deceased, 1st plaintiff, and his son, the 2nd plaintiff, and as the Court- fee was not paid the property of the 1st plaintiff in her hands as legal representative of his son, the 2nd plaintiff, was attached in execution of the order. The respondent then filed this suit against the appellant to recover the balance of the Court-fee which he failed to pay under the award, and subsequently before trial paid the Court-fee. The District Munsif dismissed the suit as premature, but the Subordinate Judge has set aside the decree and remanded the suit. We think the Subordinate Judge was right. Assuming in favour of the defendant that his agreement was to pay the balance of the Court-fee to the Court and not to the plaintiff, at the date of the suit the defendant had committed a breach of his contract and the plaintiff had suffered damage by having her property attached. There Was, therefore, sufficient to give her a cause of action, and the case Pundi Doraisami Tever v. Lakshmanan Chetty 14 M.L.J. 285. is clearly distinguish able.

(3.) Farther, the English cases which were referred to in the argument before us show that in a case of this kind, the defendant s failure to pay according to his contract at once gives rise to a cause of action in which substantial damages are recoverable. Mayne on Damages, page 334, 4th Edition, "where the defendant s promise is an absolute one to do a particular thing, as to discharge or acquit the plaintiff from such a bond, an action may be brought the moment he has failed to perform his contract, and a plea of non-damnificatus would on an estate be bad. Therefore where a party entered into a covenant to pay off encumbrances on an estate by a particular day, or to take up a note, it was held that an action might be brought and damages to the extent of the encumbrances and note respectively might be obtained, though no actual injury [had been Sustained." Leth-bridge v. Mytton 2 B. & Ad. 772 : 9 L.J. (o. s.) K.B. 330 : 109 E. R. 1332. and Loosemore v. Radford 9 M. & W. 657 : 1 D. (n. s.) 881 : 11 L.J. Ex. 284 : 60 R. R. 833.. These cases were followed in In re Allen (Adcock v. Evans) (1890) 2 Ch. 345 : 65 L.J. Ch. 763 : 75 L.T. 136 : 44 W.R. 644..