SAPTHARISHI REDDIAR (NOW MINOR) Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF TRICHINOPOLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case as found by the Lower Court may be summarised thus : The plaintiff and defendants hold approximately equal areas of land irrigated from the same source the Andapuram tank and the Karuvattar anicut and channel feeding the same. Certain repairs became necessary for the preservation of these irrigation works. The plaintiff prepared an estimate for the repairs, informed the defendants that it was proposed to effect them and called on them for a proportionate contribution. The defendants replied that they had no objection to the plaintiff s carrying out the repairs, but that it was not customary for them to contribute to such repairs and they declined to do so. The plaintiff then effected the repairs; and brought the present suit to recover a proportionate share of the cost from the defendants, basing his claim on Section 70 of the Contract Act. The only question is whether this section applies.

(2.) That the repairs were lawfully effected is not disputed. That they were for the benefit of the defendants is also not disputed : and I can see no basis for the argument that because the plaintiff also benefitted by them the section is inapplicable. Vide Damodara Mudaliar v. Secretary of State for India (1894) I.L.R. 18 M. 88 at 92. That the plaintiff did not intend to effect them gratuitously is found; and there is certainly evidence to support the finding. It only remains to determine whether the defendants enjoyed the benefit of the repairs within the meaning of Section 70 and this is the crux of the whole controversy.

(3.) The defendants (appellants) rely on the ruling of Sankaran Nair J. in Yogambal Boyee Ammani Ammal v. Naina Pillai Marakayar (1908) I.L.R. 33 M. 15 that a person cannot be said to have enjoyed a benefit within the meaning of Section 70, Contract Act, unless he has had an option of accepting or rejecting it. The plaintiff (Respondent) on the other hand draws attention to the views expressed by Miller and Sadasiva Aiyar JJ. in Gajapathi Kistna Chandra Deo v. Srinivasa Charlu .