Sections 65 and 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 provide for restitution and prevention of unjust enrichment in cases where agreements are discovered to be void or contracts become void, or where a person lawfully does something for another person or delivers something to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof.

C.P.Sinha, J.

1. Defendant No. 1, the Dominion of India, is the appellant. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for recovery of the price of 1970 charpois alleged to have been supplied by the plaintiff on 12th September, 1944, and 1st October, 1944, at the rate of Rs. 5/8 each and damages claimed were at the rate of 6 1/4 per cent. per annum from the date of the supplies. The suit having been decreed against defendant No. 1 the Dominion of India, the present appeal has been filed.

2. In 1944-45, there was a military camp at Chas, and the plaintiff was a contractor is the Military Department at Dhanbad during the period. The Sub-divisional Officer of the Military Engineering Services, popularly known as "M.E.S." Chas area made a contract with the plaintiff to meet emergent requirements for supply of 2,000 charpois at the rate of Rs. 5/8/-. According to the contract, the plaintiff alleges to have supplied 91 charpois on 12th September, 1944, and 1879 charpois on 1st October, 1944. These supplies were duly accepted and receipts given.

The plaintiff, thereafter presented a bill for a sum of Rs. 10,835/- to the Sub-divisional Officer, but the bill was not paid and it was represented to the plaintiff that the price of the charpois supplied by him had already been paid to one Amal Chatterji who was also a contractor of the Military Department. The plaintiff states that Amal Chatterjee had no authority to receive the price of the charpois supplied by him. On these facts the plantiffs went in Court. The claim was made principally against defendant No. 1 the Dominion of India but an alternative prayer had also been included for a decree against defendant No. 2. If it was found that defendant No. 2 was paid the price of the charpois supplied by the plaintiff.

3. Defendant No. 2 did not appear, and the defendant No. 1 filed a written statement. The defence is that originally a contract was given to Amal Chatterjee for supplying of 23,600 charpois under two works orders, one for 12,000 and the other for 11,600. As per contract 12,000 charpois were supplied but as the quality of the supply under the second work was cancelled and the order of 11,600 was thereafter split into two of 5,800 each. One of these work orders namely for the supply of 5,800 charpois was given to the plaintiff, and the other to one Ganguly.

Ganguly also made no supply, and the plaintiff supplied only 1879 charpois and not 1970. Both these work orders therefore were cancelled and Amal Chatterji was again called upon to supply the Charpois and he made the requisite supply. It is said that the supplies made by the plaintiff namely, of 1879 charpois were included in the contract of Amal Chatterjee and the price of the charpois supplied by the plaintiff was accordingly, paid to Amal Chatterji and it was claimed that Amal Chatterjee had, in his turn, paid the price of 1879 charpois to the plaintiff. Plea of limitation and want of proper notice was also taken in defence. Lastly it was contended that there was no legal contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and so the latter was not bound to pay any amount to the plaintiff.

4. The Court below found that notices were properly served and the question of limitation did not arise, as no part of the claim was beyond time. As to the exact number of charpois supplied the Court has found that 1,970 charpois as claimed by the plaintiff, were really supplied, and not 1879 only as admitted by the defendant in the written statement. The Court also found that the plaintiff made supplies independent of any contract with Amal Chatterjee and that the price of charpois supplied by the plaintiff was never paid to Amal Chatterjee. As to the legality of the contract, the Court has made the following observations :

"It has been asserted by the defence that under the M.E.S. Rules the S.D.O. has no such authority (to enter into a contract.) But then it has been admitted by the S. D. O. (D. W. 1) that an emergency had arisen be