SAMBASIVA AIYAR Vs. SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the decision of the District Munsif is clearly wrong. The defendant, the widow, was ex parte. Assuming that the plaintiff is, as he alleges, the next reversioner, he has such an interest as entitles him to bring a suit when his contingent interests are endangered.

(2.) Here the allegation is that the money was paid by the plaintiff to prevent the land being sold for arrears of revenue and that the defendant defaulted to pay the revenue with the evil motive of defeating the plaintiff's reversionary rights.

(3.) I hold that the plaintiff was interested in the payment of the revenue which the defendant was bound by law as puttadar to pay, and that under Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act, he is entitled to recover. The plaintiff will have a decree as prayed for with costs throughout.