Government liability for non-gratuitous benefit received can survive an invalid contract, with compensation based on market value.

Government, not the individual sowars, bore responsibility for maintaining the depot horses because the grain and fodder were supplied under official arrangements and paid from funds under official control. The Officer Commanding lacked authority to bind Government, and the purported agreement was invalid for failure to follow the required statutory mode of execution. Even so, compensation was recoverable for grain supplied and consumed, since Government knowingly received a non-gratuitous benefit; the recovery was assessed on market rate at the time of supply. Interest was refused, earlier settled accounts were not reopened, and the related objection concerning priority certificates did not change the relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the maintenance of the horses of the depot rested with Government and not with the individual sowars, (ii) whether the Officer Commanding had authority to bind the Secretary of State by the contract, (iii) whether compensation was recoverable for the grain supplied and consumed notwithstanding the invalidity of the contract, and (iv) whether the plaintiffs could recover interest or reopen the accounts for the earlier supplies.

Issue (i): Whether the maintenance of the horses of the depot rested with Government and not with the individual sowars

Analysis: The evidence showed that the horses were supplied under regimental arrangements, that the grain and fodder were purchased by the Officer Commanding from funds under official control, and that the men of the depot did not individually maintain their own horses. The historical development of the silladar system and its wartime modification supported the conclusion that, at the relevant time, responsibility for maintenance had shifted to Government.

Conclusion: The responsibility for maintaining the horses lay with Government, not with the sowars.

Issue (ii): Whether the Officer Commanding had authority to bind the Secretary of State by the contract

Analysis: Every contract on behalf of the Secretary of State had to conform to the mandatory statutory mode of execution. The officer was not among those authorised by the relevant governmental resolution to enter into such contracts, and the prescribed form had not been used. The purported agreement was therefore beyond authority and could not operate as a valid contract against the Secretary of State.

Conclusion: The Officer Commanding had no legal authority to bind the Secretary of State, and the contract was invalid as against Government.

Issue (iii): Whether compensation was recoverable for the grain supplied and consumed notwithstanding the invalidity of the contract

Analysis: Although the contract could not be enforced, the grain had been lawfully supplied for Government benefit without any intention to make a gratuitous supply, and the benefit had been enjoyed by the horses maintained by Government. On that footing, the statutory principle of compensation for a non-gratuitous benefit received applied, and the amount had to be assessed on the market rate prevailing when the supplies were made.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to compensation on the principle of quantum meruit under the statutory provision dealing with non-gratuitous benefit received.

Issue (iv): Whether the plaintiffs could recover interest or reopen the accounts for the earlier supplies

Analysis: Interest was declined because the relief granted was equitable compensation rather than enforcement of the contract. The attempt to reopen the settled accounts for the earlier supplies was rejected, as the admissions relied upon were found not to be voluntary and, in any event, the compensation awarded on market rates made the point immaterial. The complaint regarding the railway priority certificates also failed because the contractual arrangement was understood to require effective assistance in procuring transport facilities, not merely ineffective correspondence.

Conclusion: Interest was disallowed, the earlier settled accounts were not reopened, and the related objection regarding priority certificates did not alter the relief.

Final Conclusion: The decree against Government was sustained on the basis of equitable compensation for the value of the grain supplied, the claim against the Officer Commanding personally failed, and the cross-objections were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract on behalf of Government is unauthorised and unenforceable, but Government has knowingly received and enjoyed a non-gratuitous benefit, compensation is payable for the value of that benefit on equitable principles, independent of the invalid contract.

---