TMI Blog1885 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ast by the respondents, and the appellant having paid the same, the present suit was brought for the recovery of the amount so paid with interest. 2. The lower Courts have held that the appellants are not entitled to recover, taking the facts set forth above to be correct. 3. The Subordinate Judge who has decided this case in the Original Court was of opinion that the appellant was not interested in the payments which he made, because, if the share of the respondents' zamindari had been sold in consequence of their default, his putni right would not have been affected under the provisions of Section 54 of the Sale Law. Neither was the appellant entitled to recover, because in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge the appellant did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld follow; because, as soon as a tenant committed a default in the payment of his rent, any under-tenant of his would be competent to drag him into Court by making the payment himself. But Section 69 only applies to payments made bond fide for the protection of one's own interest. A person may be interested in the payment, but in making the payment if he is not actuated by the motive of protecting his own interest, he cannot recover under Section 69. See Desai Himatsingji Joravarsingi v. Bhavabhai Kayabhai I.L.R. Bom. 643 cf. p. 652. 6. If this construction of Section 69 be correct, the mischievous result apprehended would not arise. Men do not readily pay another's debts, and if an under tenant under the circumstances mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited by the payments made by the appellant. But a person who enjoys the profits of a property burdened with the payment of certain taxes is surely benefited by one who pays those taxes for him. 9. The present claim is equally sustainable under the provisions of Section 9 of the Sale Law. Under this section if the appellant believed in good faith that his interest would be endangered by the sale of this zamindari, he would be entitled to recover. 10. But it has been said that this case does not come under the section in question, because the money was not paid as a deposit, but in liquidation of the arrears of revenue, and was at once credited in payment thereof. But this circumstance, in our opinion, does not render the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
