YOGAMBAL BOYEE AMMANI AMMAL Vs. NAINA PILAI MARKAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff deposited a certain amount under Section 310A Civil Procedure Code, (Act XIV of 1882) to set aside the sale of the lands in execution of a money decree against the defend ant. The amount was paid to the decree holder, the sale was set aside and the defendant is alleged to have got back his lands : the decree debt due by her having been extinguished by the plaintiff's payment. At the time the payment was made by the plaintiff, ho was in possession of the property claiming it as reversioner and as assignee of one Lakshmana Iyer, to whom, the defendant who, according to the plaintiff, had only a life-interest in the property, had assigned it on lease or mortgage, but his right to possession was disputed by the defendant on the grounds that ho was not a reversioner and his right as lessee or mortgagee had been extinguished about the 12 March, long before the date of payment. In a suit which was pending at the time of payment, but decided afterwards, the defendant's contention was upheld. The plaintiff now sues to recover the amount.

(2.) It was not seriously pressed upon us that Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act applied. The defendant was not bound to pay the debt for which her property had been already sold and she had not disputed the validity of the sale. "Does Section 70 apply?

(3.) To found a right of demand the defendant must have enjoyed the benefit of the plaintiff's payment, the payment itself must have been lawful, and the plaintiff must have done it for the defendant not intending to do so gratuitously.