1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a certain sum of money paid by him towards the Government revenue in respect of a share in defendant-appellant's possession as thekadar. The circumstances which led to the institution of the suit are briefly these: Mt. Bhawani Kunwar was in possession of the share in respect of which revenue was paid by the plaintiff-respondent. She died in 1921. A year before her death she had granted a theka of her share to the defendant-appellant, who was bound in terms of his lease to pay the Government revenue. After the death of Bhawani Kunwar two rival claimants appeared on the scene. One was the plaintiff-respondent and the other was a person who claimed to have a preferential reversionary right. The controversy before the revenue Courts had varying results. At one stage the plaintiff-respondent was recognized as the rightful claimant and was appointed a lambardar. During the period that he held the office of lambardar he paid the Government revenue, which he now seeks to recover from the defendant-appellant. Eventually the plaintiff-respondent was unsuccessful and his rival claimant obtained possession of the share once in possession of Mt. Bhawani Kunwar. The plaintiff-respondent brought the present suit for recovery of the land revenue which he paid and which the defendant-appellant ought to have paid in terms of his lease. The lower appellate Court has decreed the claim. The defendant-appellant has preferred the present appeal.
2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that Section 69, Contract Act, which has been relied on by the lower appellate Court in decreeing the claim of the plaintiff-respondent is not applicable to the circumstances of the case. It is urged that in making the payment the plaintiff-respondent intended to further his own interest, as at that time the litigation between himself and the rival claimant made it necessary that he should pay the Government revenue to strengthen his claim against his adversary. We are unable to accept this contention. The plaintiff-respondent was admittedly the lambardar at the time when he paid the Government revenue. If he had made default in payment of the revenue he could have been arrested, his movable and immovable property, other than the share in dispute, could have been attached. In this state of things the argument that the payment made by him was a payment made by a volunteer has no force. We are of opinion that the plaintiff-respondent was, to say the least of it, interested in making the payment which he did. The defendant-appellant was not only bound to pay the Government revenue, which had fallen due, in terms of his theka, but he was also liable to pay it under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act: see Section 142, Explanation. For these reasons we are of opinion that the view taken by the lower appellate Court is correct. The appeal must therefore fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.