- (1.) THIS is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit brought against them for the recovery of a sum of money.
(2.) THE plaintiff and the defen dants are co-owners of a shop, the share of the plaintiff being one half. THE shop needed some urgent repairs. THE plain tiff called upon the defendants to make the repairs and take from him half of the cost. In the alternative he asked the defendants to allow him to have the re pairs effected and pay him half of the cost. THE defendants did not carry out the repairs, and the plaintiff was compelled to have the repairs done entirely at his own cost incurring an ex penditure of Rs. 506/7/9. THEse facts are no longer in dispute. THE plaintiff claim ed in the suit a sum of Rs. 249.98 Np. from the defendants, i.e. one half of the cost of repairs. THE claim of the plain tiff has been decreed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff, being a co- owner of the house, is not entitled to recover from the defendants any portion of the amount spent by him towards the re pairs of the house unless the defendants had agreed to contribute to the repairs or to reimburse the plaintiff. The con tention has no merit. I may first refer to Section 70 of the Contract Act which is as follows:-' "Where a person lawfully does any thing for another or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitous ly, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in res pect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered". Obviously the plaintiff did not carry out the repairs gratuitously and before undertaking that task he impressed upon the defendants their liability to share equally with him the burden of the re pairs and asked them to contribute their share of the cost. He also gave to the defendants the option of carrying out the repairs and offered to pay half of the expenses. The defendants adopted an un reasonable attitude and did not accept either of the above alternatives. They are, however, enjoying the benefit of the repairs. The claim of the plaintiff, there fore, falls within the ambit of the aforesaid provision. The learned counsel for the defendants has urged that Sec tion 70 of the Contract Act is not ap plicable where the act done by a person is for his own benefit as well and its operation is confined to those cases where a person does something entirely for the benefit of some one else. I do not agree. The section embodies an equitable principle and it should receive a liberal and not a narrow construction. In my opinion the case of a co-owner of a pro perty who has done an act in respect of that property for the common benefit of all co-owners is not outside the purview of the section. In this view I am sup ported by S. Srirama Raja v. Secy, of State. AIR 1943 Mad 85 (FB) and P. V. Muthusawami Ayyar v. A. Volammal, AIR 1947 Mad 117.
(3.) EVEN if Section 70 of the Con tract Act were not applicable to the situation the plaintiff would still be en titled to a decree against the defendants on the basis of the principle of contribu tion. That principle would clearly support a claim of the kind that the plain tiff has made and would cast an obliga tion on the defendants to recompense the plaintiff in proportion to their in terest in the property which has been saved from a danger and which has benefited by the repairs effected by the ;plaintiff. The appeal fails and it is ac cordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case I direct that the parties would bear their own costs throughout.;