1. Property purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant was attached before judgment in a suit instituted by a third party for recovery of a debt due by the defendant. The plaintiffs paid the money and sued for its recovery. The question is whether the plaintiffs were interested in the payment of the money' within the meaning of Section 69 of the Contract Act. In his notes to Section 69, Sir Frederick Pollock says: 'The words 'interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay' might include the apprehension of any kind of loss or inconvenience or at any rate of any detriment capable of being assessed in money.' In Tulsha Kunwar v. Jageshar Prashad (1906) 114 A.L.J. 372. the Allahabad High Court, in a case of attachment of movables belonging to the plaintiff for the revenue due by the defendant, held that the plaintiff was interested in the payment for the release of the goods attached and was entitled to be reimbursed by the defendant. It may be said that mere attachment of immovable property does not constitute a trespass like the attachment of goods. But there is undoubtedly reasonable apprehension of loss or inconvenience and even detriment assessable in money. Whether it is so in every case of attachment, so that even where there is not the shadow of a foundation for a claim to proceed against the property the person whose property is attached can be said to be interested in making a payment, it is unnecessary to determine on the facts of this case. We think the view was justifiable that the plaintiffs were interested. It may be doubtful whether the word 'interest' covers any interest other than pecuniary. See, however Vaikuntam Ammangar v. Kallipiram Ayyangar 26 M.K 497 and Vaikuntam Ammangar v. Kalliparan Ayyangar 23 M.K 512. The Privy Council said in Dulichand v. Ramkishen Singh 7 C.k 635: 'In this country if the goods of a third person are seized by the sheriff and are about to be sold as the goods of the defendant and the true owner pays money to protect his goods and prevent the sale, he may bring an action to recover back the money he has so paid; it is the compulsion under which they are about to be sold, that makes the payment involuntary.' The case of Valpy v. Manley 68 R.R. 778 referred to by the Privy Council is authority for the position, that the payment by the plaintiff under circumstances similar to those found in the present case is not voluntary. The decision in Boja Sellappa Reddi v. Vriddachella Reddi 30 M.k 35 relied on by Mr. Ramachandara Iyer is only authority for the position that the defendant should be bound by law to make the payment which the plaintiff is interested in making. We consider the Subordinate Judge is right in deciding in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.