Repairs done without consent.will s-70 ica apply?
pallawi
(Querist) 31 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
The problem is that A and B are co- owners of a house that is in a dilapidated condition. A is occupying one part and B occupies the other( ie. the shares are determined. A offered B that he is ready to get the repairs done if B pays the half of the costs of repair. B gives no response and the house being in dire need of repairs , A gets the same done. Now can B be compelled to pay the half of the costs of repairs when he did not consented to it. Can we apply section 70 when B did not consented for either the repairs or for the contribution?
ajay sethi
(Expert) 31 January 2012
yes B can be compelled to pay the costs of repairs as B has enjoyed the benefits of repairs . under provisions of section 70 of contract act B would be liable to pay 50%^of costs
ajay sethi
(Expert) 31 January 2012
the repairs were lawfully effected is not disputed. That they were for the benefit of the defendants is also not disputed : and I can see no basis for the argument that because the plaintiff also benefitted by them the section is inapplicable. Vide Damodara Mudaliar v. Secretary of State for India (1894) I.L.R. 18 M. 88 at 92. That the plaintiff did not intend to effect them gratuitously is found; and there is certainly evidence to support the finding. It only remains to determine whether the defendants enjoyed the benefit of the repairs within the meaning of Section 70 and this is the crux of the whole controversy.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 31 January 2012
www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1329822/
Madras High Court
Saptharishi Reddiar (Now Minor) ... vs The Secretary Of State For India ... on 2 February, 1915
Equivalent citations: (1915) 28 MLJ 384
Author: Ayl
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 31 January 2012
No he can not bind B.
Silence can not be termed as acceptance of offer unless the parties are under fiduciary relationship making him liable to open his mouth.
It is not a case under section 70 of ICA.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 31 January 2012
The citation put forth by sethi is self explanatory. The case law is purely relevant in the given case.
