Sustainability of later suit filed by original Pattadars against purchasers.

Upon the facts set out in paragraph 6 of the learned District Munsif’s judgment I think the conclusion that the learned District Munsif has come to is right and his decision will have to be upheld. The plaintiffs in this case filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 110-5-6 which sum had been recovered from the plaintiffs by the Bobbili estate as and towards arrears of rent due in respect of lands for which the plaintiffs’ maternal grandfather was pattadar. The plaintiffs are the heirs of their maternal grandfather who held lands under the Bobbili estate in patta No. 44. That maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs had sold away the lands in the zamindary about 20 years ago to the defendants by Exhibits D-1 and D-2 in the present suit out of which the petition has arisen. Ever since the said sale the defendants had been in enjoyment of the lands and the plaintiffs have had nothing to do with the same. The defendants did not pay rent for faslis 1342, 1343, 1344 and 1345 in respect of lands purchased by them though they had paid the rent for the previous faslis and also for the subsequent faslis. Thereupon the Rajah of Bobbili filed a suit and obtained a decree for arrears of cist in S. S. No.75 of 1936 against the plaintiffs as being the pattadars. The plaintiffs did not contest the suit and in execution of the decree obtained against the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 110-5-6 was recovered from the plaintiffs by attachment of the moveable assets of the plaintiffs in or about the 14th February, 1945.

The plaintiffs’ contention is that the defendants who were the owners of the lands had to pay the said arrears of rent but since the Bobbili estate had recovered the said arrears of rent from the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim reimbursement and the defendants were bound to make good the amount as they had enjoyed the benefit of the same. The plaintiffs urged that either under section 69 or 70 of the Contract Act their claim against the defendants for the amount recovered from them by the Bobbili estate was tenable and the plaintiffs had a right to be reimbursed by the defendants.

The defendants denied that the amount in question was due by them to the Rajah of Bobbili and contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any reimbursement. Their further argument was that neither section 69 nor 70 of the Contract Act would apply to the case. As regards the contention of the defendants that they have not committed any default in the payment of rent to the Rajah of Bobbili for the faslis in question, the learned District Munsif held that the defendants had not paid the cist for the said period to the Bobbili estate and the receipts, viz., Exhibit D-3, filed by the defendants did not cover the faslis mentioned in Exhibit P-2 and gave a finding accordingly.

As regards the question as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to claim reimbursement from the defendants either under section 69 or section 70 of the Contract Act, the learned District Munsif held that neither of the sections would apply to the case and dismissed the suit on that ground. The petitioner has therefore preferred this petition against the said decision of the learned District Munsif. The District Munsif has relied upon the decision in Yogambal Boyee Arnmani Ammal v. Naina Pillai Marakayar1, for holding that under section 70 of the Contract Act the party sought to be made liable must not only have benefited by the payment but also must have had the opportunity of accepting or rejecting such benefit and that where no such option was left to the defendants as in the present case, it could not be said that the defendants have enjoyed such benefit within the meaning of section 70. As against this decision the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Sri Sri Sri Kistna Chandra Deo v. Srinivasacharlu2, where it has been held that section 70 of the Indian Contract Act should be applied in all cases where the requirements of the secti