Iqbal Ahmad, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1333. The facts that led to the suit are shortly as follows A licence with respect to a liquor shop was obtained in the name of Hathi Frasad defendant 1. Hathi Prasad was a benamidar for Ganga Prasad plaintiff. Ganga Prasad deposited a sum of Rs. 1636 as security with the Government. The connection of Ganga Prasad with the liquor shop ceased in the year 1928 and thereafter Hathi Prasad defendant 1 carried on the liquor shop on his own account. Some time after the year 1928 Pheku Ram defendant 2 was introduced by Hathi Prasad as a partner in the liquor shop. The licensing fee due on account of the year 1933 fell into arrears and the Government forfeited a sum of Rs. 1333 out of the security money deposited by the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore sued both Hathi Prasad and Pheku Ram for the recovery of the said amount.
2. Both the defendants filed separate written statements and contested the suit on various grounds. All the pleas raised in defence were overruled by the trial Court and the plaintiff's suit was decreed against both the defendants. Pheku Ram defendant 2 filed an appeal in the lower Appellate Court contesting his liability as regards the payment of any portion of Rs. 1333. His appeal was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court and he has now come up in second appeal to this Court, It has been found by both the Courts below that the sum of Rs. 1636 that was originally deposited as security belonged to the plaintiff-respondent. It has further been found by those Courts that a sum of Rs. 1333 on account of licensing fee for the year 1933 was debited by the Government from the Bum of Rs. 1636 deposited by the plaintiff. On these findings the plaintiff's claim as against both the defendants was, in my judgment, rightly decreed by the Courts below.
3. It has been contended on behalf of Pheku Ram that as there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff he was not liable to answer the plaintiff's claim. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ram Tuhul singh v. Bisewar Lall Sahoo (1874) 2 I.A. 131. It was observed in that case that 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, and that to support an action for the recovery of money there must be an obligation express or implied to repay. That case is an authority for the proposition that there is no obligation to repay in the case of a voluntary payment by A of B's debt and that no action will lie when the money has been paid against the will of the party for whose use it is supposed to have been paid.
4. In my judgment the decision of their Lordships has no application to the facts of the case before me. Here it is clear that the security money belonged to the plain, tiff and a portion of that money was, without the plaintiff's consent, utilized by the Government for the satisfaction of a debt that was due to the Government from defendants 1 and 2. There is therefore no question in the present case of a voluntary payment by the plaintiff on account of debts due from the defendants. On the contrary it is a case in which money belonging to the plaintiff was, without his consent, appropriated by the Government for the satisfaction of a debt due from the defendants. The defendants benefited by the appropriation made by the Government and as that appropriation was without the plaintiff's consent, an implied obligation on the part of the defendants to repay to the plaintiff arose. The Courts below were therefore right in passing a decree in the plaintiff's favour against both the defendants. Accordingly I dismiss this appeal with costs. Leave to appeal under the Letters Patent is granted.