Ramalingathudayan vs Unnamalai Achi
AIR 1914 MADRAS 655
Case Summary
[Cause of Action of Indemnifier]
Facts
A forma pauperis suit (where the applicant is indigent and cannot pay court fees) was settled out of court with the agreement that the defendant would pay the court fee balance after Rs. 250 was paid by the plaintiff. An order was then passed in court to pay for the court fee by the widow of the now deceased plaintiff. Due to it not being paid, the property of the second plaintiff was seized (attached).
The plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants to recover the balance of court fees claiming that the defendant failed to pay it according to the terms of settlement. The District Munsiff dismissed it as premature, but it was set aside by the Subordinate Judge.
Issues
Whether the defendant’s failure to pay the court fees constituted a breach of contract and caused sufficient damage to justify a cause of action (liability of indemnifier).
Legal Provisions
Indian Contract Act, 1872:
Section 125 – [Rights of Indemnity-Holder when sued] An indemnity holder is entitled to recover from the indemnifier all damages, costs, and any sums paid in lawsuits or settlements, provided these payments are made in accordance with the indemnity agreement or due to actions taken in good faith.
Judgement
The court held that the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the balance of the court fees to the court as agreed. The non-payment caused the attachment of the plaintiff’s property, which was sufficient damage to constitute a cause of action. The case draws on English cases and legal principles from Mayne on Damages which hold that an absolute obligation to perform a particular act (such as paying court fees) gives rise to a cause of action when the defendant defaults on the agreement.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that the defendant’s breach provided sufficient grounds for the plaintiff’s suit, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the breach of contract.
Comentarios