Ayling, J.

1. The facts of this case as found by the Lower Court may be summarised thus : The plaintiff and defendants hold approximately equal areas of land irrigated from the same source the Andapuram tank and the Karuvattar anicut and channel feeding the same. Certain repairs became necessary for the preservation of these irrigation works. The plaintiff prepared an estimate for the repairs, informed the defendants that it was proposed to effect them and called on them for a proportionate contribution. The defendants replied that they had no objection to the plaintiffs carrying out the repairs, but that it was not customary for them to contribute to such repairs and they declined to do so. The plaintiff then effected the repairs; and brought the present suit to recover a proportionate share of the cost from the defendants, basing his claim on Section 70 of the Contract Act. The only question is whether this section applies.

2. That 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. Vi