9911796707
TMI Blog1910 (9) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d fifth defendants. The tenants defendants resisted the claim substantially on the ground that rent was payable to the entire body of landlords at the rate of 12 annas 16 gundas a year. Upon these pleadings the issue was raised, what was the amount of rent and cases payable by the defendants to the entire body of landlords? The defendants produced rent receipts for previous years in support of their allegation. The plaintiff, on the other hand, produced a road-cross ret urn purporting to have been filed on behalf of the first defendant which apparently supported the rate alleged by the plaintiff. The Court of first instance held that the first defendant was bound by the admission contained in the road-cess return filed by his officer on his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of construction dependent upon the intention of the parties to the contract. This position is not affected by Section 43 of the Indian Contract Act which lays down the general rule that one of several joint promisors may be compelled to perform the whole of the promise subject to a right of contribution among themselves. To put the matter in another way, to determine whether the promise is joint or several, we have to ascertain not only whether several persons have joined in making a promise to the same person, but also whether at the same time each of them has in addition made the same promise separately to the same promisee. In such a case there are, in addition to the joint promise which is made by all of the promisors together ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notified their names to him. In Rum Taran Chatterjee v. Asmatullah Sheikh 6 C.W.N. 111, where one of several joint tenants had executed a qabuliat in favour of the landlord for the entire tenure and it was proved that the other tenants did rot acquiesce in this and were in no way bound thereby, it was ruled that the tenant who had executed the qabuliat was not bound in excess of his share, and was not liable for the whole rent. The cases of Ananda Kumar v. Hari-dass 27 C. 545 : 4 C.W.N. 608 and Abdul, Rob v. Eggar 35 C. 182 : 12 C.W.N. 160also tend to the same conclusion. The case of Jogendra Nalh v. Nagendra Narain 11 C.W.N. 1026 is, however, relied upon as an authority for the contrary view. No doubt, the learned Judges in that case made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst one he has got an admission in favour of the rate of rent asserted by himself; as against the other two, he has no evidence to prove the rate and cannot possibly obtain a decree at a rate higher than the rate admitted by them. Under such circumstances, he cannot obviously be permitted to obtain a decree for the whole rent against the first defendant and ask for a dismissal of the suit as against the others. If this decree were maintained, in a suit for contribution by the first defendant against his co-sharers, the position of the former would be one of considerable embarrassment. The first defendant would be liable to satisfy the claim of the landlord at one rate, and then possibly find himself unable to recover anything from his co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
