Richard Garth, C.J.
1. This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 225 from the defendants under these circumstances:
2. The plaintiffs had sued the defendants to recover possession of four annas of a patni estate, of which the defendants claimed the whole, and were admittedly entitled to the other twelve annas. The real question in that suit was, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the four annas as patnidars, or whether they held them as darpatnidars, the defendants being the holders of the whole patni.
3. In that suit the plaintiffs got a decree as patnidars in the first Court; but on appeal the case was remanded for some further evidence to be taken. In that state of things, and whilst the plaintiff's bond fide believed themselves to be entitled to the four annas, they paid into the zemindar's sherishta Rs. 225 on account of the revenue for that sharo. But as it was eventually decided that the plaintiff's held the four annas, not as patnidars, but as darpatnidars, it turned out that the Rs. 225 was paid for the defendants' benefit, and as part of their revenue to the Government; so the plaintiffs brought this suit to recover from the defendants that sum.
4. The first Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, on the ground (amongst others] that it was paid in bad faith, with the object of making evidence of their alleged patni right.
5. The Subordinate Judge, in a very careful judgment, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim should he decreed, on the ground (amongst others) that, in making this payment, the ' plaintiffs believed themselves interested in doing so.
6. We think that this conclusion of the Subordinate Judge may be properly confirmed, though we doubt whether his judgment can be supported upon the grounds which he mentions. We think that his conclusion may be supported upon this principle that where a payment is made by one person for the benefit of another, and that other afterwards adopts that payment, and avails himself of it, the sum becomes money paid for his use.
7. The plaintiffs, bond fide believing themselves to be the owners of the fouannas share, paid the revenue of it to the zemindar. The defendants then paid the revenue on the remaining twelve annas; when they did so, they must have found that the revenue on the four-annas had been paid by the plaintiffs; and they availed themselves of that payment by the plaintiffs, only paying, or offering to pay, to the zemindar the revenue on the remaining twelve annas. We think that, under these circumstances, the Rs 225 so paid by the plaintiffs became money paid to the use of the defendants and that the judgment of the Court below can be supported upon that ground No doubt the justice of the case is entirely with the plaintiffs.
8. The appeal is dismissed with costs.