JUDGMENT :

STANLEY, C.J.:— We are of opinion that the view of the law taken by the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The money, which the plaintiffs-respondents sought to recover in their suit was Government revenue, which they, being the recorded owners of the land chargeable with the revenue, were bound to pay and in respect of which drastic remedies were open to Government in default of payment. It is true that eventually it turned out that the plaintiffs ought not to have had their names recorded as owners, but there is nothing to show us that they did not bona fide believe that they were entitled to possession of the property at the time when the payment was made. At this time an appeal was actually pending in regard to the rights of the parties in the property. In addition to the cases which are referred to in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, we would refer to a recent case, namely, the case of Tulsa Kuar v. Jageshar Prasad, 1906] 3 A.L.J.R., 372.. In the judgment in that case a wide signification is given to the words “interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay” which form part of section 69 of the Indian Contract Act. The revenue was un