Phillips Offg. C.J.

1. In this case the plaintiffs seek to recover from defendants 1 and 2 or in the alternative defendants 3 and 4 certain moneys paid by the firm of plaintiff 1 and defendants 5 and 6 to the firm of A.P.S. in Rangoon on behalf of the firm of defendants 1 and 2. The Subordinate Judge has found that defendants 1 and 2 were indebted to the firm of A.P.S., Rangoon, and that the firm of plaintiff 1 and defendants 5 and 6 called K.R.S.V. did actually pay moneys to A.P.S. firm on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff made a claim in the alternative against defendants 3 and 4 who constitute the A.P.S. firm, but subsequently withdrew that claim. The Subordinate Judge has found that although the plaintiff made these payments they do not come within the provisions of Section 70, Contract Act, on the ground that the plaintiffs were not individuals who were interested in making the payments and the payments, therefore, will not be lawful within the meaning of Section 70, Contract Act. The learned Judge appears to have confused Section 69 with Section 70. In Section 70 there is no reference to a person being interested in making the payment and it has been held by