Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (July 23, 1914) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan.

The suit was instituted by the respondents against the appellant to recover money which they had paid in respect of patni rents upon notice of summary proceedings under s. 14 of the Patni Regulation (Bengal Regulation VIII. of 1819) and under circumstances which are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.

The Subordinate Judge made a decree for the amount claimed and that decision was affirmed by the High Court (Fletcher and Richardson JJ.).

1918. March 1, 4, 5. Upjohn, K.C., De Gruyther, K.C., and Parikh, for the appellant. Even if the reduction of the mortgage interest was ultra vires the manager under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, the respondents are not entitled to recover. Money paid under pressure of legal proceedings is not recoverable Marriot v. Hampden ((1797) 2 Sin. L. C, 12th ed.303.); Moore v. Vestry of Fulham. ([ 1895] 1 Q. B. 399.) Under s. 14 of Bengal Regulation VIII. of 1819 the respondents, had they chosen, could have deposited the amount claimed and had an adjudication, or they could have brought a suit for a reversal of the sale and for damages. Having elected to pay, they cannot recover the money. Apart from that principle the respondents had no ground for recovery; there was no evidence of a mistake of fact, nor that the claim was made by legal coercion. Seth Kanhaya Lal v. National Bank of India (( 1913) L. R. 40 I. A. 56.) is distinguishable, as in that case there was a trespass; here there was a genuine claim for the adjudication of the Court. Further, the manager under the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act had power to modify the terms of the mortgage. Provided there is an encumbered estate within Chota Nagpur the manager can deal with all the mortgaged property of the holder in whatever part of British India it may be situated. This appears from a consideration of the provisions of the Act, especially s. 3, and of the purpose for which the Act was passed. The decision to the contrary in Bhicha Ram Sahu v. Bhishambhar Nath Sahi (16 Cal. L. J. 527.) is erroneous. In any event, so far as the claim was for money paid in respect of the property in Bankara there was no cause of action in the Burdwan district in which the suit was instituted Code of Civil Procedure (V. of 1908), s. 20.

Dunne, K.C., and T. B. W. Ramsay, for the respondents, were not called upon.

March 21. The judgment of their Lordships was- delivered by Viscount Haldane. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan. The respondents as plaintiffs brought a suit to recover Rs.6848.8, being the amount of patni rents for the years 1902- 1910, paid by them, as they alleged, although not due, in order to save their lands from sale under the powers conferred on zamindars by s. 14 of Regulation VIII. of 1819. The appellant, on whose behalf as having rights conferred on a zamindar it had been proposed to put the power of sale in force, contended, in the first place, that the money could not now be recovered, on the ground that, even if not legally due, it was paid voluntarily, or if otherwise than voluntarily, as the result of proceedings in which the respondents had not chosen to defend themselves, and which consequently could not be reviewed. In the second place, he contended that the amount paid was due under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act (VI. of 1876).

The facts do not appear to be obscure, and if the appellants contentions are right on either of the points stated he may be entitled to succeed. As, however, their Lordships are of opinion that the argument addressed to them from the Bar fails on both points, they have not found it necessary to call on the respondents to support the judgments in the Courts below, either on the two questions referred to or on certain minor points which the