Third-party reimbursement for revenue paid under attachment upheld; bar provisions were read narrowly to preserve civil remedy.

Sections 183 and 233(m) of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act were construed narrowly: they did not bar a third party's civil suit where her property had been attached for revenue arrears due by others. The court treated section 183 as a remedy for the defaulter against the Government for payments made under protest, and section 233(m) as protecting the Government against claims within the revenue-paying class, not extinguishing third-party remedies. A person who pays such revenue to release her property is entitled to reimbursement under section 69 of the Indian Contract Act, and section 70 also supported recovery. The amount paid, with interest and costs, was recoverable from the defendants.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether sections 183 and 233(m) of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act barred a suit by a third party whose property was attached for arrears of revenue due by the defendants; (ii) whether the plaintiff, having paid the revenue to release her property from attachment, was entitled to reimbursement under section 69 of the Indian Contract Act.

Issue (i): whether sections 183 and 233(m) of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act barred a suit by a third party whose property was attached for arrears of revenue due by the defendants.

Analysis: Section 183 was treated as a remedy available to the defaulter against the Government in respect of payments made under protest, and not as a provision covering a stranger whose property had been wrongly attached. Section 233(m), though wide in language, was construed in the setting and object of the Act as protecting the Government against claims by persons within the revenue-paying class, not as extinguishing civil remedies of third parties who were under no liability to pay the arrears. The provision was therefore not read as excluding the suit.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by sections 183 or 233(m).

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff, having paid the revenue to release her property from attachment, was entitled to reimbursement under section 69 of the Indian Contract Act.

Analysis: Section 69 was construed as a wide reimbursement provision applying where one person pays money which another is bound by law to pay and the payer has an interest in making that payment. The plaintiff's property was under attachment for the defendants' revenue arrears, so she had a direct monetary interest in payment. Her payment was made bona fide to protect her property, was not voluntary, and conferred a benefit on the defendants by discharging their liability.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement from the defendants under section 69, and section 70 also supported the claim.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the plaintiff was granted recovery of the amount paid with interest and costs, the statutory objections to the suit having failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A third party who pays another's legally recoverable revenue to save her own property from attachment is a person interested in the payment and may recover reimbursement, and revenue-bar provisions will be construed narrowly so as not to defeat such a civil remedy absent clear legislative language.

---