Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Krishnan
Srirangam Municipal Council
Versus
Bodi Alias Anganna Naidu
Decided On : 28 February, 1923
Implied Contract - Slaughterhouse Fees - The court held that the plaintiff Municipality is entitled to a decree as sued for on the footing that the defendant has enjoyed the right of collecting the tolls for the whole year contracted for and is liable as on an implied contract.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant bought the right to collect fees for slaughtering cattle in the plaintiff Corporation's slaughterhouse. The suit for the balance money due from him was dismissed by the lower Court due to the absence of a written contract as required by the old District Municipalities Act IV of 1884.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff Municipality is entitled to a decree as sued for on the footing that the defendant has enjoyed the right of collecting the tolls for the whole year contracted for and is liable as on an implied contract.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff Municipality was entitled to a decree based on an implied contract, despite the absence of a written contract as required by the old District Municipalities Act IV of 1884.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of implied contract and the defendant's enjoyment of the right to collect tolls for the whole year contracted for in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the decree of the lower Court was set aside, and a decree was given to the plaintiff as sued for with costs in this Court and the lower Court.
Krishnan, J.
1. In this case the defendant bought in auction
the right to collect fees or tolls for slaughtering cattle in the slaughter-house of the plaintiff Corporation. This suit is for the balance money due from him. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that no written contract was executed as required by Section 45 of the old District Municipalities Act IV of 1884 which was in force. It is argued before me that though no claim could be made on the basis of the written contract a decree should have been given at any rate on the footing of executed consideration, the defendant having been found to have enjoyed the right of collecting the toll for the whole year.
2. There is no doubt a conflict of authority on the point. So far as the English Law is concerned it must now be taken as settled by Lawford v. Bellericay Rural Council (1903) 1 K.B. 772 in favour of such decrees being given. The learned Judges refer to Young and Co. v. Mayor etc., of Royal Leamington, Spa (1883) 8 A.C. 517 which was taken to have laid down the opposite view and point out that the question was expressly reserved there. In Douglass v. Rhyl Urban Council (1913) 2 Ch. 407 jayce, J. holds that the case in (1903) 1 K.B. settles the English Law on the point.
3. As regards the authorities in our High Court the case in Raman Chetti v. The Municipal Council of Kumbakonam (1907) I.L.R. 30 M. 290 does not really deal with this question. The observation in Ramaswamy Chetty v. The Municipal Council, Tanjore (1906) I.L.R. 29 M. 360 is based on Young and Co. v. Mayor etc. of Royal Leamington Spa (1883) L.R. 8 A.C. 513 which has now been explained away and is in the nature of an obiter. I do not propose to refer to the other Indian cases. I think the plaintiff Municipality is entitled to a decree as sued for on the footing that defendant has enjoyed the right of collecting the tolls for the whole year contracted for and is liable as on an implied contract.
4. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the decree of the lower Court is set aside and a decree given to the plaintiff as sued for with costs in this Court and the lower Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
