LexKAPUR CHAND GODHA versus MIR NAWAB HIMAYATALIKHAN AZAMJAH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'• l~~ SUI'RE~IE COURT REPORTS [1963) - . ' . . 1112_ . by, the Ai:bitrator; But, however, unusual the rule ,..----,-... m.a. y · a .. ·P· ·p· e .. ar .·.t.o be, it would not open to the Court Jl/s~ 8wllj,,.ull. '· Nirc•·••IF' to ,«:~:tend ·the . right- to appeal and to enable a o~.; >.,!· -1·• 1 / claimant whose claim has been rejected completely ··~• .,_.,." ~••:• ·t 1 t tb H. h C Th . b · -.,-,- · . o ap.1,1e~ . .o . e 1i; ourt. e ng t to appeal s~.?!· IS exercISable only 1£ the amount awarded ·exceeds Rs: 5,000/'. " · · 1112 -- ... , . I_n ,that ;yiew of the case, the High Court was right i,J:l_ not . ente~taining . the appeal. The appeal · fails .and jfl dismissed. Appeal dismissed. . KAPUR CHAND GODHA v. . ' - ,,,,;1 It. l\IIR NAWAB HIMAYATALIKHAN AZAIIIJAH (1 (S· l\:· ·DAS, M. HrnAYATULLAH and J. C. SIIAH, JJ.) · · Contract-Pro•-ince accepting performance from third per&m in full Bali•faction of claim-If can Bue promisor for ba~nce- · ~ndi'an ContractA~t, 1872 (9_of 1872), ss. 41, 63, illustration (c), I ' In January 1937 · one M & Co. sold and delivered · jewellery vahied at about .13 lakhs to the respondent, the Prince of Berar. The Pririce acknowledged in writing the purchase of the jewellery and the price thereof and passed variOus acknowledgments in respect of the debts due · and the last of such acknowledgments was -made. for sum of RS. 27,79,000. In April 1948, the appellants presented their bill and 'wer~ informed in January, 1919, that the Nizam had passed the bill. In February, 1949, when Hyderabad was under military occupation, a Committee was set up by the· Military Governor to scrutinise all debts of the Prince of Berar and his younger brother. The claim. of the appellants was considered by the. Committee which recommended that the appellants should be paid a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs in full satis- faction of their claim •. The appellants were paid the sum ·or Rs: 20 lakhs in two instalments. The appellants tried to pas• a·r(ceipt when the}' received the second instalment r~sciving v:e,fr ICi~h.t fo ICCO\Cf t.he bruance !'nder the pronote frOJU thy 2 s.c.R, SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 169 Prince ofBcrar. J~hc relevant authorities refused 1to make payment on the ~aid receipt. Thereupon the appellants dis- charged all the previous pronotes and on each one of them recorded a satisfaction of the full amount. The appellants thereafter sued• the respondent for the recovery of the balance of the monies due to them on the pronote. The trial court decreed the su'it on the ground that there was no accord and satisfaction when the plaintiff received the second cheque from the Accountant General, Hyderabad. In appeal by the respondent . the Appellate Court set aside the decree holding that the appellants had accepted the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs in full satisfaction of their claim and duly discharged the pro· misory notes by endorsing full satisfaction thereon. . I The appellants came up to the Supreme Court in appeal by cct.i\icate granted by the High Court. ' /Held, that when payment is accepted on the condition on ,~hich it is offered, it is not ope:v to the person receiving the P!'yment to say, either in fact or in law, that they have ai:cepeted the money but not the condition. A promisee accepting performance of the promise from a third person, can not afterwards enforce it against the prom,lser. ,., '\ ·In the present case the appellants had given a full discharge when they received the second instalment; and as they accepted the money in full satisfaction of their claim, they were not entitled to sue the respondent for the balance. Obiter : When a statute clearly covers the case it is hardly necessary to refer to a decision. C1vrr. APPELLATE JumsDICTION: Civil Appeal " No. 52 of 60. ~ Appeal from the judgment and deeree dated April 15, 1958, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 25 of 1957. J: .... B. R. L. Iyengar, for the appellants. M. O. Setalvad, Attorney General of India S. R. Vakil, K. H. Bhabha, J. B. Dadachanj/ 0. O. Mathur and Ravindra Narai:n, for the respon'. dent. · J96B Kapur Chand Go4~• v; Mi.r Nawob Him'lyalalik.hm Azamjah Kotur CMnJ God/la Vo i\1ir Notod Him, yt la/ikl,t.1& Azonljah Da1J. 170 SUPREME OOURT BE.PORTS [1963] 1962. April 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. K. DAB, J .-Thia is an appeal on a certi- ficate granted by the High Court of Bombay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.