044-NLR-NLR-V-13-MUTTUPILLAI-v.-CHINNAPILLAI-et-al.pdf
( 182 )
May 27,1910
Present: The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice,and Mr. Justice van Langenberg.
MUTTUPILLAI v. ' CHINNAPILLAI et al.
D.C., Jaffna, 6.119.
Action on a bond by a person not entitled to sue on the bond—Money paidunder sanction of Court—Second action on the bond by personlawfully entitled to sue.
The law will never compel a person to pay a sum of money asecond time which he has paid already under the sanction of aCourt of competent jurisdiction, provided that the person has doneall that was incumbent on him to resist the payment.
A granted a bond in favour of B. After B’s death, C, whowas B’s illegitimate child, alleging that she was the sole heiress of' B, sued A on the bond and obtained judgment. And thereupon _ Apaid the sum due on the bond to C. Subsequently D, who wasthe legitimate child of B, as administratrix of B’s estate, sued Aon a copy of the bond. Under the circumstances of this case, itwas held that D could not maintain the action againBt A.
fJlHE facts are set out in the judgments.
Kanagasabai (with him Balasingham), for the appellant.—Thefirst defendant was aware that there were two persons claiming the.money due on the bond. She should have brought to the notice of
( 183 )
the Court, when she was sued by Sivakamipillai, that the present May 27,1910plaintiff had also claimed the money due on the bond. If she MuttupiUaiallowed judgment to go against her without bringing these facts to v.the notice of the Court, she could not be said to have done all c"*wna**B“*in her power to resist the payment. Sections 466 and 467 ofPothier relied on by the District Judge do not apply. The principleenunciated there must be read in the light of the illustrations givenby Pothier.
Tisseverasinghe, for the respondents (first to eight).—The firstdefendant paid the money under legal compulsion (Mohamado v.
Ibrahim1). He had just grounds for considering that Sivakamipillaiwas the real creditor after the mortgagee’s death. He cited Pothier,sections 466,467; 2 Nathan 796.
Tambyah, for the ninth respondent.
Balasingham, in reply.
Cur.adv.vult.
May 27, 1910. Hutchinson C.J.—
The plaintiff sues on a mortgage bond made by Cbinnapillai (firstdefendant) and Ponnachi dated December 28,- 1901, in favour ofSaravanamuttu for Be. 250 and interest. Saravanamuttu died inNovember, 1903, and the plaintiff sues as his administratrix.
Ponnachi died in April, 1903, intestate; the second to the eighthdefendants are her heirs; they are minors, appearing by theirguardian ad litem the first defendant.
After Saravanamuttu’s death an action was brought on the bondin July, 1904, by Sivakamipillai againsH Chinnapillai, both personallyand as administratrix of the estate of Ponnachi. In that actionSivakamipillai alleged that the mortgagee, Saravanamuttu, haddied intestate, leaving property worth less than Rs. 1,000, andleaving her his sole heiress; that the mortgagor, Ponnachi, had diedintestate, and that the first defendants Chinnapillai had obtainedletters of administration to Ponnachi’s estate; and she filed anaffidavit in proof of these allegations. Chinnapillai filed no answer,and a decree was made on August 18,1901, for payment of theamount due on the bond by her to Sivakamipillai. and on August25, 1904, she paid it in pursuance of the decree.
On July 6, 1906, the present plaintiff, Muttupillai, applied to theDistrict Court for letters of administration to the .estate of thedeceased morgagee, Saravanamuttu, alleging that she (being hisonly daughter by his first wife) and Natchipillai (his widow) andSaravanamuttu (his grandson, the only son of his daughter, the saidSivakamipillai, by his second wife, the said Natchipillai) were his soleheirs, and that he left property worth Bs. 1,850. It seems thatSivakamipillai was then dead, although there is no evidence of it.
1 (1895) 2 N. L. R. 36.
16-
( 184 )
May 27,1916 H1® respondents to that application were Natchipillai and the father
of the alleged grandson (who was a minor); they disputed the
applicant’s right; there was a trial, and the Court decided that—- . Natchipillai was not the lawful wife of the deceased mortgagee, thatMuttupMai gjva]{amjpj^aj had therefore no interest in his estate, and that theOhinnapillai applicant was his sole heiress; and letters of administration weregranted to her accordingly. She then brought- this action againstthe surviving mortgagor (the first defendant) and the minor childrenof the deceased mortgagor Ponnachi, claiming from them the moneydue on the bond; the first defendant is not sued as the administra-trix of Ponnachi, apparently because she has (so the' plaint alleges)conveyed all Ponnachi’s property to the minors, although I do notsee hbw a transfer to minors, who cannot- even give a receipt, coulddischarge the first defendant from her liability.
The defendants in their answer pleaded the payment to Sivakami-pillai in pursuance of the decree, and that, ar she produced, in thataction the original bond and the title deeds of the mortgaged landsand proved her claim by an affidavit, the first defendant paid herthe debt in good faith and got from her a receipt and the title deeds,
. and that the payment was a good discharge for the debt. Theyalso alleged that the plaintiff, having allowed Sivakamipillai toremain in possession of the bond and title deeds, and having so ledthe defendants to pay the debt to her, was estopped from now suingthem for it.
Afterwards the Court ordered the .plaintiff to take steps to joinas a party the heiress of Sivakamipillai, and the ninth defendantwas accordingly joined. No one, however, made any claim againsther, and the action as against her was dismissed and the plaintiffwas ordered to pay her costs.
This action is brought on a. copy of the bond. There is noevidence as to what has become of the original; it is presumablyin the possession of the first defendant.
At the trial the plaintiff deposed that she came to know of thebond after her father’s death; that she spoke about it to the firstdefendant seven or eight months after her father’s death (whichwould be about the time when Sivakamipillai’s action was brought),and that the first defendant told her “ that two persons weredemanding money, and that she would pay the right – person afterletters were taken out.”
The District Court- dismissed the action, and I think rightly. Inthe former action Sivakamipillai alleged that the mortgagee had died' intestate, that his estate was worth less than Es. 1,000, that shewas his sole heir, and that the bond debt was still due; she proved' all those allegations; and the Court thereupon made its decree. Nocollusion is alleged between her and the defendant. – The defendantwas compelled by the decree to pay her, and in my opinion thepayment was a sufficient discharge, and the present plaintiff cannot
( 185 )
call on her 'to pay over again, although an action might perhaps May 27,1910have been maintained, if brought within due time, against Sivakami- jjutchinbonpiilai to recover the amount which he received.C.J.
No Boman-Dutch authority exactly in point has been quoted to Mviuu^iXtaius; but Pothier on Obligations, sections 466, 467 (referred to in the ».District Court) and 2 Nathan 795, support the view that payment CA»nna.pitta*under such circumstances is a good discharge. Sivakamipillai wasapparently in possession of the mortgagee’s inheritance; she hadthe bonds and the title deeds; she had to prove her title to maintainher action, and in particular to prove that the mortgagee’s estatewas worth less than Bs. 1,000—a point on which the Court wasbound to satisfy itself, whether the defendant raised it or not.
The plaintiff has made the added defendant a respondent to theappeal in order to complain of the order as to costs, but 1 see nogrounds for interfering with that order.
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Van Langenbebo A. J.—
The first defendant and her daughter Ponnacbi executed amortgage on December 28, 1901, in favour of one Saravanamuttu.Ponnachi died in 1903. I gather that the first defendantadministered her estate and conveyed all Ponnachi’s property toher heirs, the second to eighth defendants.
Saravanamuttu died in November, 1903. It appears that hefirst married Theywanipillai, and he had a child by her (the plaintiff).This marriage was not registered. He in the lifetime of TheywanL-piilai contracted another marriage (registered) with Natchipillai,and had a daughter by her name Sivakamipillai. Sivakamipillai,claiming to be the sole heiress to her father’s estate, instituted onJuly 18, 1904, an action No. 3,781, D. C., Jaffna, against the first-defendant personally and as administratrix of Ponnaohi’s estate onMay 18, 1904, and obtained judgment for the full amount due on thebond now sued on in this case. In case No. 3,781 Sivakamipillaifiled an affidavit, in which she stated that she was the sole heiress,and that her father’s estate was under Bs. 1,000 in value, so thatthere was no necessity for administration. She, further, in the saidcase produced and filed the original bond. The first defendantdischarged that judgment by payment to Sivakamipillai on August25, 1904.
On July 6, 1906, plaintiff, claiming to be entitled as heir to halfof Saravanamuttu’8 estate, applied for letters of administration toher father’s estate. Sivakamipillai was then dead, but her motherNatchipillai and her son Saravanamuttu (the ninth defendant inthis case) were made respondents. The grant of letters was opposed,and in the course of the proceedings it was held that Sivakamipillaiwas illegitimate and that plaintiff was sole heiress.
( 186 )
May $7*19X0 The plaintiff as administratrix oi her fathers estate and soleVaiTlan- heiress brings this action against the first to eighth defendants tooenbkbg recover the amount due on the bond.
A'J* The defence is that the defendants having been compelled by processMutupiUai qJ' Law to pay the amount due on the bond to SivakamipiUaiiChirmapiUai the debt has been discharged, and it is therefore not competentfor the plaintiff to maintain this action. The principle is huddown by Bonser C.J. in Mohamado v. Ibrahim1 that the law willnever compel a person to pay a sum of money a second time whichhe has paid already under the sanction of a Court of competentjurisdiction, provided that the person has done all that wasincumbent on him to resist the payment, and the case of Turnbullv. Robertson2 was referred to.
Applying this principle to this case, there was proof before theCourt that Sivakamipillai was the sole heiress, and that her father'sestate was under the value of Bs. 1,000.
It is not shown here that the first defendant was in a position tocontest either fact. Further, the original bond was produced, andit is not surprising if the first defendant thought the rightful heirwas suing. Compelled as he was through no fault of his own topay the debt, I hold that it is not competent for plaintiff to claimthe amount again, and I therefore think that the judgment shouldbe affirmed.
I will not interfere with the order for costs made in favour of theninth defendant. 1 agree to the order proposed by my Lord.
Appeal dismissed.
(1895) 2 N. L. R. 36.
•(1878)47^ J.C.P.D.294.