TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1926 (4) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was that if the vendee failed to pay the money left with him for payment to Bohra Khetpal thus occasioning a suit in Court (aur naubat nalish ki adalat tak pahunche) then the vendee shall be responsible for costs and interest on the money aforesaid from the date of the deposit. 3. Subsequently the village Sikrari was proclaimed for sale in execution of a decree for money obtained by Peare Lal against the plaintiff, and in order to pay up the money due by him to Peare Lal and the balance of the mortgage money due to Bohra Khetpal and certain other debts due by him to other creditors, the plaintiff sold that village to Maqsud Ali Khan for ₹ 10,000, out of which ₹ 3,174 were paid by him to Bohra Khetpal in satisfaction of the remaining money due on the mortgage. 4. In the present case the plaintiff claims the extra interest which he had to pay Bohra Khetpal in consequence of the delay of the defendant in paying the sum of ₹ 5,000, left with him for payment to Bohra Khetpal. The trial Court awarded him ₹ 987-8-0 as compensation on account of the extra interest, which he had to pay to Bohra Khetpal on the said sum of ₹ 5,000 from the 7th June 1913 to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey he has had to pay a much larger amount to him than he would have had to pay, had the amount left by him with the vendee been paid to Bohra Khetpal within a reasonable time of the deposit; and he is entitled consequently to ask the vendee to pay him that amount. 8. A man who is entrusted with a certain sum of money with instructions to pay the same to another person, to whom the person paying the money is liable, keeps the money left with him at his peril. If he fails to pay it or delays payment beyond a reasonable time, he is liable for damages as for a breach of a contract to the extent of the loss which the person depositing the money has suffered by reason of such failure or delay, and under Article 83 of the Indian Limitation Act a suit to enforce the security or for damages resulting from the delay is within time if filed within three years from the date of actual injury. The decision in Raghubar Rai v. Jairaj (1912) 34 All 429 does not apply because there was no contract of indemnity in that case and the plaintiff had not made any payment entitling him to enforce any indemnity. The damages in this case accrued when the plaintiff had to sell one of his properties to Maqsud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the mortgage. No time was specified for payment, and so it must be deemed that he was to pay it within reasonable time. It has not been shown that it was not reasonable to pay it at once and so it may be taken for the purposes of this suit that the contract was to pay the mortgagee the ₹ 5,000 on the 7th of June 1913. The money was not paid to the mortgagee but in connexion with insolvency proceedings against the plaintiff it was ultimately paid to the plaintiff on the 22nd September 1916. After this the plaintiff redeemed the mortgage on the 15th of August 1917 and had to pay ₹ 3,174-8-0 interest. His case is that if the ₹ 5,000 had been paid by the defendant to the mortgagee on or about the 7th of June 1913, when the defendant was liable to pay it, the interest due at that time would have been only ₹ 2,227-8-0. The plaintiff accordingly sued for the difference namely, ₹ 1,147 11. The defence was that the money could not be paid by the defendant to the mortgagee owing to the plaintiff's fault. The plaintiff had represented that the ₹ 5,000 would redeem the mortgage not taking into account the interest. The mortgagee refused to take the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ouncil decision in Izzat-un-nissa v. Partab Singh (1909) 31 All 583. But the Privy Council decision relied on was not one with reference to the Limitation Act, and I consider was no authority for the view that this contract would fall under Article 83. On behalf of the respondent it has been argued that Article 62 might apply, but the money was never payable under the covenant by the defendant to the plaintiff but by the defendant to the mortgagee. Accordingly the only question I consider that arises on the score of limitation is whether Article 116 will apply, and if so, should it be read with Section 24. There can be no doubt that the suit is one based on breach of a registered contract: and that the time begins to run under Article 116 from the date when the contract is broken. The contract was broken on the 7th of June 1913. The suit would therefore be time-barred unless we can invoke 8. 24 of the Limitation Act which is as follows: In the case of a suit for compensation for an act which does not give rise to a cause of action unless some specific injury actually results therefrom, the period of limitation shall be commuted from the time when the injury results. 15. In const....