TMI Blog1950 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used to visit the temple. In December, 1939, he told the applt. that he had to fulfill a vow by feeding one thousand Brahmins as he had been blessed with a son. The applt. was further told that Dhanpalsingh was new to the place so he would get money from Raipur from his father-in-law to the applt.'s address. After a few days the applt. received three money orders totalling ₹ 1,772. Dhanpalsingh appeared the next day collected the money from the applt. saying that they would go to make purchases in the market for feeding the Brahmins. While they were going to the market Dhanpalsingh slipped away into a lane and disappeared with the money. 3. It was the applt.'s report to the police which ultimately led to the prosecution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that where money is paid to another under the influence of a mistake, that is, upon the supposition that a specific fact is true, which would entitle the other to the money, but which fact is untrue, the money would not have been paid if it had been known to the payer that the fact was untrue, an action will lie to recover it back, it is against conscience to retain it; though a remand may be necessary in those cases in which the party receiving may have been ignorant of the mistake. The position that a person so paying is precluded from recovering by laches, In not availing himself of the means of knowledge in his power, seems, from the cases cited, to have been founded on the dictum of Bayley J. in the case of Milnes v. Duncan (1827) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 Roma cars gave him a cheque for 5000 payable to the resps. The cheque was made over by B to the resps. for clearing his own account under the hire-purchase agreement taking the furniture. On discovering the fraud the applts. sued the resps. for recovery of 5000 was paid under mistake of fact. The House of Lords held that under the rule laid down in Kelly v. Solari (1841) 152 E.R. 24 : (9 M. W. 54), the applts. were entitled to recover the sum paid under the cheque. The decision was, however, not unanimous. Viscount Cave L.C. who was in the minority with Lord Atkinson was of the view that the applts. were precluded on the ground of estoppel from recovering the money. According to the Lord Chancellor there is a great body of author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no one can plead ignorance of the law. See William Whiteley Ltd. v. The King (1909) 101 L.T. 741 at p. 745 Baylis v. London (Bishop) (1913) 1 ch. D. 127 at p. 137 : (62 L.J. Ch. 61). According to their Lordships of the P.C.S. 72, Indian Contract Act, makes no distinction between mistakes of fact mistakes of law. The decision of Sen J. in Jagadish Prosad v. Produce Exchange Corporation, Ltd. A.I.R. 1946 Cal. 245 : (80 C.L.J. 170) that a payment made under a mistake of law which is not the origin of a contract can be recovered under Section 72 has been approved in Shiba Prasad v. Srish Chandra (A.I.R. 1949 P.C. 297 : 76 I.A. 244) (supra). Further Lord Reid who delivered the judgment of the Board observed: It may be well to add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disentitled to recover what was paid under mistake. Reference may, however, be made to Solomon Jacob v. The National Bank of India Ltd., Aden 42 Bom. 16 : (A.I.R. 1917 Bom. 119), Raghunath v. Imperial Bank of India, Ltd. 50 Bom. 49 : (A.I.R. 1926 Bom. 66), China Southern Bank Ltd. v. Te Thoe Seng 3 Rang 477 : (A.I.R. 1926 Rang 14) Punjab Industrial Agency, Ltd. v. Mercantile Bank of India, Ltd. 11 Lah. 667 : (A.I.R. 1930 Lah. 852) as examples of cases in which the pltfs. failed to. recover what was paid under mistake. 10. If the reason for the rule that a person paying money under mistake is entitled to recover it is that it is against conscience for the receiver to retain it, then when the receiver has no longer the money with him o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|