1. We think that the lower Appellate Gourd has taken an erroneous view of the law in rejecting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the defendant derived his title during the plaintiff's minority from the mother of the latter acting as the de facto guardian of the minor. The sale-deed purports to deal with the property as the mother's and there is no mention whatever in it of the minor. The minor must, therefore, be taken to have been completely ignored and that at a time when the mother was not the guardian of the minor's property which was then vested in the Court under Bombay Act XX of 1864, and the Court had appointed one Suklal as guardian and administrator of it. In selling the property to the defendant the plaintiff's mother acted adversely to the minor and her act could not bind him. The sale, therefore, in favour of the defendant must be set aside and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property.
2. But it is urged that the plaintiff cannot recover it without paying to the defendant the purchase money which went to satisfy debts binding on the minor. Assuming that it did, and that the minor benefited from it, we see no equity in favour of the defendant which entitles him to payment by the plaintiff of moneys which he had paid to the plaintiff's mother, not as his guardian, but as acting and purporting to act on her own behalf adversely to the minor. As held by the Privy Counoil in Ram Tuhul Singh v. Biseswar Lall Sahoo (1875) 2 I.A. 131 : 23 Cal. W.R. 305 'it is not in every case in which a man has benefited by the money of another that an obligation to repay that money arises. The question is not to be determined by nice considerations of what may be fair or proper according to the highest morality. To support such a suit, there must be an obligation, express or implied, to repay. It is well settled that there is no such obligation in the case of a voluntary payment by A of B's debt. Still less will the action lie when the money has been paid, as here, against the will of the party for whose use it is supposed to have been paid.'
3. In the present case the defendant paid the debts of the plaintiff, not as the plaintiff's debts or for the plaintiff, but as debts binding on his mother. The payment cannot, therefore, come under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872), because it was not made for the plaintiff. It must under these circumstances be held to have been a purely voluntary payment and the remarks of the Calcutta High Court in Abhassi Begum v. Moharanee Rairoop Koonwar (1878) 4 Cal. 33 apply to the facts of this case.
4. We must; therefore, reverse the decree of the Court below and award the claim against respondent No. 1 with costs on him.