TALUK BOARD OF KOILPATTI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT SUBBA NAICKER Vs. SENTHATTIKALAI PANDIA CHINNATHAMBIAR (DECEASED) ZAMINDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Taluq Board of Koilpatti sued the Sivagiri Zamindar for a declaration of rights and for recovery of money on foot of an agreement, Ex. A, executed on 6 June, 1895, by a former Zamindar of Sivagiri in favour of the Tinnevelly Taluq Board in whose territorial jurisdiction Sivagiri was then included.

(2.) The correspondence exhibited in the case established that the then Zamindar was keen upon having a Taluq Board Hospital established at Sivagiri, the headquarters of his Zamindari, but the Taluq Board was not prepared to do so unless the Zamindar agreed to make a contribution both towards the cost of construction and towards the expenses of its maintenance. The Zamindar having accepted this condition, the hospital was opened in September, 1894, in a building temporarily occupied for the purpose; but, before beginning the construction of a permanent building, the Board insisted on and obtained a registered document Ex. A from the Zamindar. By this document, the Zamindar on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors bound himself "to pay to the Board an annual contribution of Rs. 500 on or before the 30 day of September every year in consideration of the establishment and maintenance by the said Taluq Board of a dispensary at Sivagiri" and also "pay to the said Taluq Board Rs. 2,000 towards meeting the cost of construction of a building for the dispensary when the work shall be begun". A building was accordingly constructed by the Board, the Zamindar paid his contribution of Rs. 2,000 and he as well as his successors continued to pay the annual contribution of Rs. 500 till September, 1924. The defendant who had by this time come into possession of the Zamindari declined to make any further contribution on the ground that the Taluq Board was realising quite a large sum by way of cesses, and no longer stood in need of a contribution from him for the purpose of the hospital. Hence this suit.

(3.) The learned subordinate Judge has held that on a true construction of Ex. A, it only bound the then Zamindar and, not his successors in the estate. He was also of opinion that so much of the agreement as related to the annual contribution, of Rs. 500 did not amount to a contract because there was no corresponding obligation on the part of the Board to continue to maintain the hospital for all time: he held that this portion of Ex. A was only in the nature of a continuing offer which could be revoked and had been revoked by the defendant. Finally he held that the obligation, if any, imposed by Ex. A upon succeeding Zamindars could not be enforced as against the estate because of the provision of Section 4 of the Madras Impartible Estates Act (II of 1904) and he was of opinion) that the present case did not fall, within the exceptions saved by Section 7. He accordingly dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the Taluq Board.