CASE STUDY

DAMODARA MUDALIAR VS SECRETARY OF STATE

This final draft of project on the afore-mentioned topic has been submitted in
the partial fulfilment of the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) course in
LAW OF CONTRACTS - I

Submitted By: Submitted to:

ROHIT VARDHAN, Ms. Sushmita Singh
B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Teacher Associate
(2762) Semester- 2ND of Law of Contracts

Chanakya National Law University, Patna.

February, 2023

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Sr TITLE Page
No. No.

Declaration 3

Acknowledgement 4

1 1.1 Introduction 5-6

1.2 Literature Review

2 Statement of Problem 7

3 Hypothesis 7

4 4.1 Research Objectives 7

4.2 Research Questions

5 Research Methodology 7-8

6 Sources of Data 8

7 Limitations of the study 8

8 Mode of Citation 8

9 Chapters 9-16
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Poverty
9.3 Justice and Issue of Access
9.4 Obstacles faced by the poor
9.5 Legal Aid in India

10 Conclusion 17

Bibliography 18

2
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Project Report entitled
“DAMODARA MUDALIAR VS SECRETARY OF STATE” submitted at CHANAKYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA is an authentic record of my work carried out under
the supervision of Ms. Sushmita Singh, Teacher Associate of Law. I am fully responsible for the
contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the candidate)

Rohit Vardhan
Roll No: 2762 B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
Semester- 2nd
Chanakya National Law University, Patna

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At this point of time, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me their
support to complete this project.

I am grateful to my law of contract teacher who is Ms. Sushmita Singh (Teacher Associate)
for giving me permission to commence this project in the first instance and to do necessary
study and research. I want to thank my faculty members for all their professional advice,
value added time, effort and enterprise help, support, interest and valuable hints that
encouraged me to go ahead with my project.

I am deeply indebted to my colleagues for their meticulous planning, layout, presentation

and above all for their consideration and time.

My heartfelt appreciation also goes to seniors and my classmate for their stimulating
suggestions and encouragement which helped me at each level of my research and in
writing of this project.

Especially, I would like to give my special thanks to my parents, family members and God
whose patient love enabled me to complete this project.

Rohit Vardhan
Roll No: 2762 B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
Semester- 2nd
Chanakya National Law University, Patna

4
 1. INTRODUCTION:

In this case, the appliance of section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) was in question.

Section 70 of the Act speaks about the requirement of a person enjoying the advantage of a non-
gratuitous act. consistent with this section, a person who enjoys the advantage of a non-gratuitous
act done lawfully by another person becomes susceptible to compensate such person with
reference to the non-gratuitous act done. During this case, the rule of law that no-one should
benefit at the expense of another was upheld.

The Court while considering the appellant's argument that there was no contract between the
appellants and therefore the respondents which could produce to any joint liability which could
successively produce to action for contribution mentioned the case, Leigh v. Dickenson L.R. 15
Q.B.D. 60 during which the parties were tenants-in-common of a house, and therefore the claim
made was in respect of cash expended on substantial and proper repairs.
The statement of law made during this case that where an outlay is within the nature of salvage,
all curious about the thing saved are sure to contribute was held to be incorrect in various
decisions made by the court later like Lampleigh v. Brathwaite 1 Smith’s Leading cases 160. As
a general rule, a person can't be made responsible for goods and services rendered under
circumstances giving him no option of declining or accepting.

The Court distinguished this case from the earlier cited case on the grounds of dissimilar facts
and therefore the non-availability of the remedy of partition. There was no common obligation to
repair the tank because the appellants and therefore the respondents were separately susceptible
to their tenants for the upkeep of the tank and not jointly.
1
The exception which covers the case of joint debtors where one debtor pays the entire debt was
found to be not applicable here. If relied upon English authorities, the liability of the appellants
would be non-existent within the instant case.

1
Available at https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/NzA0NQ==/Damodara-Murlidhar-v-Secretary-of-State-of-India
5
 1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW:

In the making of this project, I will take the help of various books, journals and articles. They
are as follows:

i. Indian Contract Act, 1872

This statute contains different provisions related to contract wherein Section 70 which
speaks about the requirement of a person enjoying the advantage of a non-gratuitous act
and the rule of law that no-one should benefit at the expense of another.

ii. Avtar Singh, Law of Contracts & Specific Relief, 12th Edition, (Pg 569-570)
In the book it has been discussed about the case of Damodara Mudaliar Vs Secretary of
State and also mentioned about Section 70 of Indian Contract Act, 1872

2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Whether there was common obligation to repair the tank because the appellants and therefore the
respondents were separately susceptible to their tenants for the upkeep of the tank and not jointly.

3 HYPOTHESIS:

i. The zamindars who were proprietors of the villages irrigated by the tank might be
held responsible for the expenses of its repair incurred by the government.

4.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

i. To understand the meaning of Poverty.

ii. To discuss the obstacles faced by the poor in accessing justice in India and to
analyse the scope of legal aid in India.

6
4.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

i. Who were at the fault?

ii. Whether there was any valid contract between the appellants and respondent?
iii. What was the rule of law referred by the court to decide the case?

5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The researcher will limit his project on the Doctrinal and secondary method of research as the
topic provides limited scope for non-doctrinal and empirical research. The researcher will be
using both primary and secondary sources of data.

6 SOURCES OF DATA:

In this project of the said topic, the researcher has relied on primary sources as well as
secondary sources of data:

i. Books
ii. Articles
iii. Websites
iv. Statutes

7
7 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY:

The researcher had gone through the texts and referred to the sources available to him while
completing this project. Many doctrinal sources were beyond the access of the researcher too.
Furthermore, the topic had little scope of empirical study which added to limitation involved in
the making of this project. Given an opportunity and resources, this study could have expanded
and detailed over the nature of legal aid available in India to address the issue of poverty and
access to formal justice procedures.

8 MODE OF CITATION:

The researcher has hewn to Blue Book Citation (20th Edition) in this project report.

8
 CHAPTERS

9.1 ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

Background:
In this case, the appliance of section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) was in question. Section
70 of the Act speaks about the obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act.
According to this section, any person who enjoys the benefit of a non-gratuitous act done lawfully
by another person becomes liable to compensate such person with respect to the non-gratuitous
act done. In this case, the rule of law that nobody should benefit at the expense of another was
upheld.

The Government repaired a certain tank from which were irrigated lands in the zamindari of the
defendants and also raiyatwari villages held under Government which had been severed from
the Zamindari. It was found that the defendants knew that the repairs, which wore necessary for
the preservation of the tank, were being carried out and did not wish to execute thorn themselves
except as contractors and that they had enjoyed the benefit of the work done, and further that
Government had carried out the repairs not intending to do them gratuitously for the defendants,
it was not found that there was any request, either express or implied, on the part of the
defendants to the Government to execute the repairs. In a suit by the Secretary of State to recover
from the defendants their share of the cost incurred: Held, that the plaintiff was entitled under
contract Act, s. 70, to recover part of the cost incurred, estimated with reference to the irrigable
area of the villages owned by the plaintiff and defendants, respectively.2

Facts:
The Parayankulattur tank irrigated eleven villages. Earlier, all the 11 villages were zamindari
villages. Later, seven of these villages were severed from zamindari and have become ordinary
ryotwari villages under the control of the government. The tank was in need of repairs and
therefore the Government administered the repairs for the preservation of the tank. The
government sought proportional contribution from the appellant zamindars towards the prices of
the repair.

2
VOL. XIII, TILR, 88 (1894).
9
The appellants denied their liability contending that the govt was sure to do the repairs at its own
expense and not entitled to charge the zamindars. The question during this case was whether the
zamindars who were proprietors of the villages irrigated by the tank might be held responsible
for the expenses of its repair incurred by the government.

Arguments:-

Contention of the appellants:

• The Government was bound to do the repairs of the Parayankulattur tank at its own
expense and not entitled to charge the zamindars.

• There was no contract between the appellants and the respondents which could give
rise to any joint liability which could in turn give rise to an action for contributions
held in Leigh v. Dickenson L.R. 15 Q.B.D. 60.

• The District Judge had not made a fair apportionment of the cost of the work, having
regard to the interests of the Government villages and zamindars’ villages in the
irrigation secured by the tank.

Contention of the respondents:

• Under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (1872), the appellants are liable to pay the
Government as they benefit from the repair of the tank as the tank irrigates the
zamindari villages as well.

• The act of repairing the tank was not intended to be a non-gratuitous act by the
Government.

• The appellants were aware of the repairs being executed and had not disapproved of
the same.

Issues:

• Whether the repairs were executed for the benefit of the appellants?

• Whether the Government acted lawfully in executing the repairs?

• Whether the Government intended the act to be non-gratuitous?

10
Judgement:
The Hon’ble Court while considering the appellants’ first contention that there was no contract
between the appellants and the respondents which could give rise to any joint liability which
could in turn give rise to an action for contribution referred to the case Leigh v. Dickenson L.R.
15 Q.B.D. 60 in which the parties were tenants-in-common of a house, and the claim made was
in respect of money expended on substantial and proper repairs. The statement of law made in
this case that where an outlay is in the nature of salvage, all interested in the thing saved are bound
to contribute was held to be incorrect in various later decisions like Lampleigh v. Brathwaite 1
Smith’s Leading cases 160. As a general rule, a man cannot be made liable for goods and services
rendered under circumstances giving him no option of declining or accepting.

The Hon’ble Court distinguished the present case from the aforementioned case on the grounds
of dissimilar facts and the non-availability of the remedy of partition. There was no common
obligation to repair the tank because the appellants and the respondents were separately liable to
their tenants for the maintenance of the tank and not jointly. The exception which covers the case
of joint debtors where one debtor pays the whole debt was found to be not applicable here. If
relied upon English authorities, the liability of the appellants would be non-existent in the instant
case.

However, section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) lays down a rule of law different from the
English authorities. Under this section to establish a right of action at the suit of a person who
does anything for another, three conditions must be satisfied:

1. The thing must be done lawfully.

2. It must be done by a person not intending to act gratuitously.

3. The person for whom the act is done must enjoy the benefit of it.

Under this section, it is not essential that the act should have been necessarily done due to
circumstances of pressing emergency or for the preservation of the property. The application of
this section is not limited to persons standing in particular relations to one another. The only
requirement for its application is that the act should be lawful.
11
According to an illustration given in England v. Marsden L.R. 1 C.P. 529,the fact that the
respondent had an interest in the matter may show that he was acting on his own account only.
However, section 69 and Moule v. Garrett (L.R. 5 Ex. 132 on appeal: L.R. 7 Ex. 101) show that
a person doing an act in which he is himself interested may, at the same time, intend to act for
another and hence, may be entitled to recover the money spent from the other. This principle
couldn’t be applied in the instant case as the duty of the appellants and the respondent was related
to the doing of work and not the payment of money. The Hon’ble Court held that the Government
acted non-gratuitously while doing the repair as there was some evidence to show that the act was
not intended to be done gratuitously and there was no evidence to the contrary.

The Hon’ble Court while deciding whether in executing the repairs the Government acted
lawfully, opined that the section should not be read in such a way as to justify the officious
interference of one man with the affairs or property of another, or to impose obligations in respect
of services which the person sought to be charged did not wish to have rendered. In the instant
case, it was held that the Government had acted lawfully in repairing the tank. Irrespective of
whether the act was done with a view of benefiting all the villages under the tank or the
Government villages only, and irrespective of whether or not it was done with the intention of
charging the zamindars, the act was held to be lawful. The fact that the zamindars knew of the
intention to execute the repairs and did not disapprove shows that the act was done lawfully for
them.

While deciding whether the appellants had enjoyed the benefits of the repair, the Hon’ble Court
stated the need to ascertain the irrigable area of the villages owned by the Government and the
zamindars, respectively. Prima facie, it appeared that the Government derived more benefit from
the repair of the tank than the appellants as the majority of the villages irrigated by the tank were
ryotwari villages. The District Judge in his findings stated that the appellants had undoubtedly
enjoyed the benefits of the repair. The Hon’ble Court accepted the findings and dismissed the
appeal with costs. The appellants were held liable to pay the necessary proportion of the cost of
the repair of the tank incurred by the respondent.

12
 9.2 OBSERVATION

In this case, the court interpreted the application of section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (1872)
keeping in mind the rule of law that no person should benefit at the cost of another. This case laid
down the principle that while applying section 70, the fact that the party who committed the non-
gratuitous act had a personal interest in the matter would not render him ineligible to recover
proportional contribution from those who have enjoyed the benefits of his act. This case also laid
down that while applying section 70 it was not necessary for the party who did the non-gratuitous
act to prove that it was done under a situation of pressing emergency in order to recover
compensation for such act from the party who benefitted from it.

9.3 SECTION 70 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act:

Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not
intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is
bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or
delivered3

When a person lawfully does something for another person (for example, delivers a good or a
service) without intending to do so ‘gratuitously’, and the other person enjoys the benefit of the
delivery of that good or service, the latter is bound to pay back to the former.

A gratuitous act is one that is done for a person by another without the expectation of a return.
For example, giving someone a gift is a gratuitous act. Here comes your Amazon package
delivered to the wrong address. A pack of chocolate chip cookies that you ate as soon as they
arrived. You are liable to compensate the actual owner of the package.

For example, the illustration of a shoe shiner unsolicitedly polishing one’s shoes or that of the
coolie picking up one’s goods will lie under Section 70. Such acts and services are not done

3
S.70, Indian Contract Act, 1872.
13
gratuitously and therefore a liability to pay back arises on the part of the person on the receiving
end.

9.4 UNJUST ENRICHMENT

In a contract, if a party is not paying any restitution or consideration against the service received,
he is liable, which we state as a breach of contract in layman terms. However, legally the
beneficiary is liable for unjust enrichment mentioned in Sections 68-72 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872. Unjust enrichment can be defined as a benefit received at the expense of another,
which is neither legal nor can be comprehended as a gift, against which the beneficiary has to pay
reimbursement or restitution. It means that an individual should not unfairly gain profit through
unjust means causing loss to another.4

In such a case, the beneficiary should provide restitution to the person suffering loss by paying a
reasonable value against the benefit received. This article would analyze and understand the
theory of unjust enrichment or unjust benefit and the importance of restitution in unjust
enrichment.

In India, the first steps of the doctrine of Unjust Enrichment can be observed in the 1860s
in Rambux Chittangeo v. Modhoosoodun Paul Chowdhry. In this case, the judgment was
provided based on the jurisprudence of Robert Joseph Pothier and John Austin. Following years,
the principle was developed and later codified in the ICA, 18725 and later in the Central Excise
and Customs Law (Amendment) Act, 1991. In the recent past, the most remarkable development
in the doctrine was brought by the landmark judgment of the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action vs. Union of India and others, where few environmentalists brought the matter into light
how enterprises are polluting or harming the fertility of the soil and contaminating the water body
by dropping hazardous waste into them and not disposing of them in an appropriate manner. The
Hon’ble Court, in this case, defined unjust enrichment and its relation with restitution and
benefited considering the enterprises guilty

Fundamentals of the doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:

4
Available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/introspection-unjust-enrichment-india
5
Indian Contract Act, 1872.
14
The doctrine of unjust enrichment is based on three key ingredients;

• The benefit of one person,

• At the expense of another,

• Making the person with benefits liable to compensate for the losses of another.
However, the doctrine has been named or defined by different courts in various forms prioritizing
the idea of benefit and restitution. Nevertheless, the question always lies in its validity.

Unjust Enrichment or Unjust Benefit:

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and others, the Court referred to
the case of Schock v. Nash that defined unjust enrichment as a benefit to the loss of another or the
retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity
and good conscience.” The Court, by this statement, is précising on the idea of enrichment. It
elucidates that when a person receives or gains a benefit; he is enriched; when the same benefit
is gained or received by utilizing unjust or wrongful means, it is termed unjust enrichment. In
simple terms, unjust enrichment is committed by the person whose act of enrichment is against
the perennial fundamental principles of justice or equity.

Restitution and Unjust Enrichment:

The doctrine of unjust enrichment is essential to the subject of restitution. The term ‘restitution’
is one of the fundamental bases of the doctrine. It has been stretched out to incorporate reinforcing
or offering back something to its legitimate owner. However, it also includes payment,
repayment, reimbursement, or reparation for benefits received from or for misfortune or injury
caused.

Unjust enrichment is regularly alluded to or viewed as a ground for restitution; it is maybe more
precise to see it as an essential, as ordinarily, there can be no restitution without unjust
enrichment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court explained ‘Unjust enrichment’ and ‘restitution’ as the
two shades of green; one inclining towards yellow and the other towards blue. With restitution,
until the misfortune of others has not been wholly reimbursed, injustice to that degree remains.
The courts have broad powers to allow restitution, and that is only the tip of the iceberg where it
identifies abuse or resistance with court orders.
15
The court also stated that restitution and unjust enrichment, alongside a cross-over, must be
considered based on the two phases, i.e., pre-suit and post-suit. In the former case, it is a
substantive law (or common law) right that the court will consider; however, in the latter case,
when the parties are under the watchful eye of the court and any act/omission, or essentially lapse
of time, brings about the hardship of one, or unjust enrichment of the other, the court’s jurisdiction
to equalize and do equity is autonomous. It should be promptly used; else, it will permit the
court’s process, alongside time delay, to do injustice.

While managing the matter, the Hon’ble Court also alluded to cases where the Courts have
practised their intrinsic powers and applied the principles of justice and equity in the issue of
unjust enrichment. The court referred to the discoveries in Padmavati v. Harijan Sevak Sangh,
wherein the Delhi High Court held that the litigation process had been extended to deny the
privileges of an individual and to partake in the products of illicit acts. In such situations where
the court finds that one of the parties is utilizing the court as a tool by propagating illicit acts or
has sustained an illegal possession, the court should impose costs on such parties, which ought to
be equivalent to the benefits inferred by the party and the hardship and trouble endured by the
legitimate individual.

In order to prevent these trivial suits and prevent individuals from procuring a rich collection of
illicit demonstrations through the court, the objective of the judicial system must be to discourage
unjust enrichment utilizing courts as a tool. The expenses forced by the Courts in all cases ought
to be the actual costs equivalent to the loss endured by the legitimate individual.” While
summarizing the judgment, the Hon’ble Court expressed that while adjudicating, the courts
should keep in view that ‘it is the obligation and commitment of the court to offset any unjust
enrichment and gratuitous increase made by any party by summoning the jurisdiction of the court.

Remedies for Unjust Enrichment:

Various remedies have been provided for unjust enrichment under Sections 68 to 72 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. These sections provide remedies considering the various
circumstances. Section 68 of the Act provides remedies to the person who supports and provides
life-saving necessities to another individual who is not capable of entering into a contract or to
whom he is legally bound to support. In the case of Jai Indra Bahadur Singh v. Dilraj

16
Kaur Money was advanced to a minor for his sister’s marriage, which under this section was
found to be necessary and can be recovered from his property.

Section 69 provides remedies to the person who is interested in the payment of money that
another is bound by law to pay and who therefore pays it is entitled to be reimbursed by the other.
In Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria v. the State of Gondal, the party had consented to buy certain
plants; he was permitted to recover from the dealer the measure of effectively overdue municipal
taxes paid by him to save the property from being sold at the auction.

Section 70 provides a remedy to a person who does an act or delivers something, not gratuitously,
causing benefit to another person, then the person who benefited is liable to provide compensation
or affect the restoration of the thing delivered. In the case of Great Eastern Shipping Company
Limited v. Union of India, the plaintiff, in this case, did not gratuitously deliver a coal carriage to
a defendant’s union. The defendant being benefited by the service had to reimburse the plaintiff
for the provided service.

Section 71 provides a remedy to the owner of a good or property from a person who finds the
owner’s goods or belongings and takes them into his custody by providing him with the same
responsibility as that of the bailee. In the case of Newman v. Bourne and Hollingsworth, the
plaintiff lost his ring in the defendant’s shop. One of the defendant’s servants found the ring in
the shop and then kept it in a cupboard, Later when the plaintiff came back to the shop in search
of his ring, it was stolen. Here the defendant was held liable for not taking care of the same.

Section 72 provides a remedy to the owner of goods whose belonging was delivered to another
by mistake or under coercion. The person who receives it should return it as per this section. In
the case of Associated Cement Company limited v. Union of India, the railway authorities were
bound to reimburse the extra fare as they considered that the goods would need to be carried for
a longer route.

9.5 RELATED CASE LAWS

Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides for the right to reimbursement of a person
who is not a party to a contract but has performed it in certain circumstances. Here are 10 case
laws that illustrate the application of Section 70:

17
 1. Ponnuswami v. Rajamani, (1976) 2 MLJ 400: In this case, the plaintiff paid the
defendant's debt to the bank without the defendant's knowledge. The plaintiff was
entitled to reimbursement from the defendant under Section 70.

2. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2008 ACJ 1975: In this case,
the plaintiff had paid compensation to an injured party on behalf of the defendant
who was the insured. The plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement from the
defendant under Section 70.

3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak, (1997) 2 SCC 181: In this
case, the plaintiff had settled a claim made by a third party against the defendant,
who was the insured. The plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement from the
defendant under Section 70.

4. Kondiba Dagdu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, AIR 1999 SC 2217: In this
case, the plaintiff had constructed a house on the defendant's land without the
defendant's permission. The plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for the value
of the construction under Section 70.

5. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition: In this case, it was held that a person
who pays money under a mistake of fact or law is entitled to reimbursement from
the person who received the money under Section 70.

6. Abdul Kadir v. Salima, AIR 1916 PC 88: In this case, the plaintiff paid the
consideration for a property to the defendant's agent. The agent did not pass on the
consideration to the defendant, and the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement
from the defendant under Section 70.

7. Srikrishna v. Narayanaswami, (1901) ILR6 24 Mad 395: In this case, the plaintiff
had performed certain religious ceremonies for the defendant's deceased father.
The plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement from the defendant under Section 70.

6
Indian Law Reports
18
8. Madras Preserved Meat Factory v. S. Sivaraman, AIR 1968 Mad 281: In this case,
the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant's agent under a mistaken belief that
the agent had authority to make purchases on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff
was entitled to reimbursement from the defendant under Section 70.

9. Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali, AIR 1913 PC 62: In this case, the plaintiff paid the
defendant's debt to a third party under a mistaken belief that he was liable for the
debt. The plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement from the defendant under Section
70.

10. Arvind Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. v. Kalinga Mining Corp., AIR 2007 Orissa 11:
In this case, the plaintiff had provided certain services to the defendant under a
mistaken belief that the defendant had entered into a contract with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement from the defendant under Section 70.

19
 10. CONCLUSION

In the case of Damodara Mudaliar Vs Secretary of State, The Hon’ble Court distinguished the
present case from the aforementioned case on the grounds of dissimilar facts and the non-
availability of the remedy of partition. There was no common obligation to repair the tank
because the appellants and the respondents were separately liable to their tenants for the
maintenance of the tank and not jointly. The exception which covers the case of joint debtors
where one debtor pays the whole debt was found to be not applicable here. If relied upon
English authorities, the liability of the appellants would be non-existent in the instant case.

Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is a provision that deals with the right to
reimbursement of a person who is not a party to a contract but has performed it in certain
circumstances. It provides a remedy to those who have conferred a benefit on another person
and seeks to prevent unjust enrichment of the recipient of the benefit. The section is a
recognition of the principle that no one should be allowed to retain a benefit that he has not
paid for.

The principle of unjust enrichment is a fundamental principle of law that aims to prevent one
party from unfairly benefiting at the expense of another. Section 70 is a manifestation of this
principle and seeks to prevent unjust enrichment by allowing a person who has conferred a
benefit on another to recover the value of the benefit from the person who has received it. The
section is an important tool for enforcing the principle of unjust enrichment and ensuring that
parties are not unjustly enriched at the expense of others.

In conclusion, Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is an important provision that
provides a remedy to those who have conferred a benefit on another person. It is a recognition
of the principle of unjust enrichment and seeks to prevent one party from unfairly benefiting at
the expense of another. The provision is an important tool for enforcing the principle of unjust
enrichment and ensuring that parties are not unjustly enriched at the expense of others.

20
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

The following sources were referred to by the researcher in the making of this final draft of
the project:

Statute:

1. Indian Contract Act, 1872

Books:

1. Avtar Singh, Law of Contracts and Specific Relief, 12th Edition

WEBLIOGRAPHY:

1. https://lawtimesjournal.in/damodara-mudaliar-ors-vs-secretary-of-state-of-
india/ (last visited on 16/02/2023)

2. https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/NzA0NQ==/Damodara-Murlidhar-v-
Secretary-of-State-of-India (last visited on 15/02/2023)

3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/quasi-contractual-obligations/ (last visited on

16/02/2023)

21