The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of S.69 and S.70 of the Indian Contract Act, as well as the rights and liabilities under the Transfer of Property Act.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 94-8-6 paid by the plaintiff by way of land tax to Government for the suit property for the years 1120 to 1131. The pattah for the property was in the name of the plaintiff, but the property was in the possession of one Poranchu from the year 1060. He assigned his rights by Ext. D-7 in the year 1119 to the first defendant. In that year, the plaintiff sued the first defendant and her husband the second defendant, in O. S.208 of 1119 for recovery of the suit property, alleging that it was an accession to the adjoining property mortgaged by the plaintiff; the suit was ultimately dismissed by the Cochin High Court, by Ext. D-3 judgment. The plaintiff sued them again in O. S.103 of 1124, alleging that the property was held by them on oral lease; that suit also was ultimately dismissed by the High Court, so far as the suit property was concerned, by Ext. D-4 judgment. The plaintiff, having paid land tax in the meanwhile for the period aforesaid, has sued the defendants for

reimbursement. The Munsiff dismissed the suit, while the Subordinate Judge in appeal gave the plaintiff a decree. The first defendant has come up in second appeal.

2. The first contention in second appeal was, that the claim for reimbursement is not sustainable, whether under S.69 or S.70 of the Indian Contract Act. The first defendant has a case, that she applied for the transfer of pattah to her name soon after Ext. D-7 and that this was successfully opposed by the plaintiff. However, there has been a live dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant as to the title to the property ever since Ext. D-7, the plaintiff trying to recover the property, alleging in the first suit that it was held by the first defendant as an accession to the mortgaged property and in the second suit as a lessee. In these circumstances, it is more than clear, that the plaintiff had been paying land tax more in support of his alleged title to the property than with an intention to benefit the defendants. The latter had no option to refuse the benefit of the payment. It is not the law under S.70, that a benefit can be thrust on a person, to make him liable for reimbursement. In State of West Bengal v. M/s. B. K. Mondal & Sons AIR. 1962 SC. 779 at p. 788 the Supreme Court said:

"S. 70 is not intended to entertain claims for compensation made by persons who officiously interfere with the affairs of another or who impose on others services not desired by them. It is thus clear that when a thing is delivered or done by one person it must be open to the other person to reject it. Therefore, the acceptance and enjoyment of the thing delivered or done which is the basis for the claim for compensation under S.70 must be voluntary. It would thus be noticed that this requirement affords sufficient and effective safeguard against spurious claims based on unauthorised acts."

The claim cannot therefore fall within S.70.

3. S.69 of the Contract Act is as follows:

"A person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay, and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other."

To exclude the operation of this Section, learned counsel for the first defendant put his argument thus. The plaintiff as the pattahdar or the registered holder of the property was the person liable to pay tax and not the first defendant who, though the real owner, was not the pattahdar. Under the revenue law the pattahdar is the defaulter and is personally liable to Government for tax as specified in the pattah, even though the property for which tax is due is not in his possession, and does not even belong to him. On this reasoning the Madras High Court held in Boja Sellappa Reddy v. Vridhachala Reddy ILR. 30 Madras 35 that the real owner is not bound by law to pay the tax within the meaning of S.69. Speaking with respect, T am unable to agree with this view. Even under the revenue law, the property