AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Subrahmania Ayyar, O.C.J.
The present suit is for the return of the money paid on account of renewal fees under the agreement which was held to be unenforceable in
Original Suit No. 650 of 1898 and consequently for money paid on an existing consideration which has since failed. This right of action is clearly
different from the right on which the suit for specific performance was brought. Section 43 of the CPC does not therefore apply (Pachiakutti
Udaiyan v. Panchanada Patten S.A. No. 2SS of 1899 (unreported).). The view taken in Muthu Narayana Reddi v. Rayalu Reddi S.A. No. 181 of
1895 (unreported) relied on on behalf of the Respondent is in conflict with the current of decisions in this Court as well as the decisions of the
Judicial Committee as will be seen from the judgment in Ramaswami Ayyar v. Vythinatha Ayyar ILR 26 Mad. 760 in which the whole subject has
been recently examined at length. Section 29 of the Specific Relief Act also has no application, the present claim not being one for compensation
for breach of the agreement to grant a renewal. The suit is in time since it was brought within three years from the decision in the suit for specific
performance (Venkata Narasimhulu, v. Peramma ILR 13 Bom. 137, Venkatarama Ayyar v. Venkatasubramanian ILR 29 Cal 735 and Sriramulu
v. Chinna Venkatasami ILR 26 Mad. 760. The decree of the lower Court is reversed and there will he a decree in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs. 60
with interest at six per cent, (per annum) from the 21st March 1902 to date of payment and costs throughout.