Bound by law | 'B' holds agricultural land on lease from ‘A’ the landlord. 'A' was in arrears of land revenue payable to the Government. The land was advertised for sale by the Government Consequent to the sale… Can 'B' recover the same from 'A'? Decide.

Question: Bound by law | B holds agricultural land on lease from ‘A’ the landlord. A was in arrears of land revenue payable to the Government. The land was advertised for sale by the Government Consequent to the sale taking place lease in favor of ‘B’ is also liable to be annulled under Revenue Laws. B, in order to prevent the same, pays arrears to Government. Can B recover the same from A? Decide. [DJS 1996]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Bound by law | ‘B’ holds agricultural land on lease from ‘A’ the landlord. ‘A’ was in arrears of land revenue payable to the Government. The land was advertised for sale by the Government Consequent to the sale… Can ‘B’ recover the same from ‘A’? Decide.]

Answer

Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 lays down provision for Reimbursement of person paying money due by another, in payment of which he is interested. It states:

“A person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other.”

The conditions of liability under this section may now be stated.

1. The payer must be interested in making payment

Firstly, the plaintiff should be interested in making the payment. The interest which the plaintiff seeks to protect must, of course, be legally recognizable. His honest belief that he has the interest to protect is enough.

2. But should not be bound to pay

Secondly, it is necessary that the plaintiff himself should not be bound to pay. He should only be interested in making the payment in order to protect his own interest.

3. The defendant should be under legal compulsion to pay

Thirdly, the defendant should have been “bound by law” to pay the money. The words “bound by law” have been held, after some hesitation, to mean bound by law or by contract. It is not necessary that the liability should be only statutory. It is enough that “the defendant at the suit of any person might be compelled to pay.

4. Payment should be by one to another

Lastly, the plaintiff should have made the payment to another person and not to himself. Thus, in Secy of State for India v. Fernandes, [ILR (1906-08) 30 Mad 375] where a certain Government was the tenant of land and paid to itself out of the rent due to the landlord the arrears of land revenue due to itself, the Government could not recover from the landlord.

It was a transfer of money from one head to another within the Government and not ‘payment to another and though it was done to save the land from being sold in execution, it did not come within the principle of the section.

The facts of the present case are similar to the illustration appended to Section 69 of the act. Here in the case, ‘B’ holds land in Bengal, on a lease granted by ‘A’, the zamindar. The revenue payable by A to the Government being in arrear, his land is advertised for sale by the Government.

Under the revenue law, the consequence of such a sale will be the annulment of B’s lease. ‘B’ to prevent the sale and the consequent annulment of his own lease pays the Government the sum due from ‘A’. ‘A’ is bound to make good to ‘B’ the amount so paid.

---

Law of Contract Mains Questions Series: Important Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Contract Mains Questions Series Part-X