SUBBIAH UDAYAR Vs. SRINIVASA UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It this case, the plaintiff and defendants agreed that the defendants would discharge a certain liability of the plaintiff to a third party. Out of this agreement three suits have arisen. The defendants refused to pay to the third party and the first suit was brought and a decree obtained against the plaintiff by that party. Then the plaintiff sued the defendants and the third party to compel the defendants to pay the third party the amount decreed against him. The defendants then objected that the suit was premature and that the plaintiff did not have any right to claim any compensation until he actually paid to the third party the sum agreed to be paid by the defendants. The Court accepted this contention and dismissed the suit.

(2.) The decree against the plaintiff by the third party was then executed and the plaintiff had to pay the amount and immediately thereafter the present, the third, suit was instituted. The first defendant now contends that the present suit is barred, as it ought to have been decreed on the previous occasion. This argument was accepted by the Subordinate Judge in the judgment sought to be revised and I have to pronounce upon its correctness.

(3.) It is supported on the ground (1) that a wrong decision in law does not bind the parties and (2) alternatively that as the defendants denied their liability in the previous suit, a new cause of action arose from that denial.