Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. If the payment was voluntary we do not think the case comes within the principle of the decision in Kumar Nath Bhattacharjee v. Nobo Kumar Bhattacharjee (1898) I.L.R. 26 C 241 where the suit was for contribution under an agreement in respect of a debt which had been realised by the sale of the plaintiff's property. In Dorasinga Tevar v. Arunachalam Chetti (1899) I.L.R. 23 M. 441 the defendant agreed to discharge a debt due by the plaintiff to a third party and to pay the plaintiff any damage he might sustain if the defendant tailed to discharge the debt. No time was fixed for the performance of the contract. The defendant having failed to discharge the debt for nearly three years, it was held he was bound to do so within a reasonable time, and that his failure to do so during the three years was a breach of his contract, not with-standing that the third party had not enforced his claim against the plaintiff.

7. In the present case the plaintiff must show a breach of con-tract by the defendant. The fact that he himself paid the debts, in itself, in our opinion, gives him no cause of action. If he paid them before the expiry of a reasonable time after the agreement, the defence would have been open to the defendant that he had not had reasonable time to fulfil his contract, and that he had consequently not broken his contract. If the plain-tiff waited till the expiry of a reasonable time the defendant's breach of contract would give him a cause of action, whether he himself paid the debts or not. See Dorasinga Tevar v. Arunachalam Chetti (1899) I.L.R. 23 M. 441. The question as to what is a reasonable time is a question of fact-Contract Act, Section 40. In Dorasinga Tevar v. Arunachalam Chetti (1899) I.L.R. 23 M. 441 the court held a defendant, who had failed to fulfil a contract similar to this for nearly three years, had failed to do so within a reasonable time.