1915 (9) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Binding nature of the agreement on the tarwad or family of the defendants.
2. Authority of junior members of a tarwad to enter into binding contracts.
3. Necessity and validity of the agreement in question.
4. Ratification of the agreement by the karnavan.
5. Entitlement of the plaintiff to remuneration based on quantum meruit.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Binding Nature of the Agreement on the Tarwad or Family of the Defendants:
The primary issue is whether the agreement sued on is binding on the pandaram or family of the defendants. It was noted that the defendants, being junior members of a tarwad, typically lack the authority to enter into contracts binding on the tarwad. The karnavan, who manages the tarwad, acts in a fiduciary capacity for all members. Thus, the agreement's binding nature on the tarwad was questioned.

2. Authority of Junior Members of a Tarwad to Enter into Binding Contracts:
The court examined whether junior members of a tarwad have the authority to pledge the tarwad's credit for litigation expenses. It was established that while junior members can sue for the karnavan's removal or challenge his alienations, they generally lack the authority to bind the tarwad in contractual matters. The court concluded that the junior members did not have the authority to enter into the agreement in question, especially given the exorbitant remuneration stipulated.

3. Necessity and Validity of the Agreement in Question:
The court scrutinized whether it was necessary to pledge the tarwad's credit in the manner done in this case. Exhibit A, the document sued on, stipulated significant remuneration for the plaintiff if he succeeded in certain legal actions. However, the court found no justification for such an agreement, especially since the terms were not shown to be in the family's best interest. The agreement was deemed unnecessary and not beneficial to the tarwad.

4. Ratification of the Agreement by the Karnavan:
The plaintiff argued that the agreement was ratified by the karnavan, as the 1st defendant continued the suit and made remittances after becoming the Rajah. However, the court found no issue raised on ratification and no materials to decide that the 1st defendant, with full knowledge of her obligations, ratified Exhibit A. Thus, the argument of ratification was dismissed.

5. Entitlement of the Plaintiff to Remuneration Based on Quantum Meruit:
The plaintiff claimed entitlement to remuneration on a quantum meruit basis, arguing that the defendants' actions rendered his contract performance impossible. The Subordinate Judge had awarded Rs. 2,500 on this principle. However, the court found that the agreement was not binding on the tarwad and that the plaintiff failed to prove the necessity and benefit of the agreement to the tarwad. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim for remuneration based on quantum meruit.

Conclusion:
The court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit with costs throughout, concluding that the agreement was not binding on the tarwad and that the plaintiff failed to establish his claim. The memorandum of objections was also dismissed with costs.