SRINIVASA THATHACHARLU Vs. NOOLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant is the grandmother of the 1st defendant and during the minority of the latter she sold certain property to the plaintiff in the year 1901. The plaintiff got possession and while in possession was ousted by a person who claimed a superior title and who obtained a decree in respect of the properly. Thereupon this suit was brought on the indemnity clause in the sale-deed. The suit was both against the minor, who has since attained majority, and the grandmother. They are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) Mr. Sitarama Row conceded that, as regards the 1st defendant, he could not sustain his claim. The indemnity clause cannot bind the 1st defendant. That was decided by the Privy Council in Indur Chunder Singh v. Radhakishore Ghose 19 C. 507 (P.C.) : 19 I.A. 90 : 6 Sar. P.C.J. 185 and consequently the claim, so far as the 1st defendant is concerned, must be dismissed. The second appeal, to that extent, is dismissed with costs.

(3.) The case against the 2nd defendant is different. We cannot help saying that the Courts below have confused the issue by introducing the question of deceit. So far as the plaint is concerned, there is nothing in it which suggests fraud either against the 1st defendant or against the 2nd. The simple case put forward by the plaintiff is that, relying on the representation of the 2nd defendant, he purchased the property, that he was deprived of the property, and that he is entitled to damages for the breach. That is stated very clearly in paragraph 3 of the plaint.