ESSENTIALS REQUIRED FOR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO

SUCCEED UNDER SECTION 69 OF ICA 1872

For a claim for reimbursement to succeed, it needs three absolute essentials:

I. There should be a person interested in the payment of money.

i. Plaintiff must be interested in the payment.

Only payments made to protect one’s own interests are covered by the
provisions of this section. A person may be interested in the payment, but if he
is not motivated by the desire to safeguard his own interests when making the
payment, he would not be able to claim reimbursement. 1 This is suggested by
the use of the word ‘therefore’ in the section. But, the individual making the
payment should not be liable to pay the amount himself.2

ii. Where does the interest in payment of money arise from?

The interest in payment of money may be because of statutory compulsion,

but it is not necessary that there has to be a legal compulsion. Mere
compulsion of fact or existence of liability undertaken by agreement between
plaintiff and the defendant is sufficient for a claim to stand under the
provisions of this section.3 Payments made voluntarily or as result of
plaintiff’s own wrongdoing are not considered.

iii. What is the nature of the interest in the payment of money?

The nature of the plaintiff’s interest in payment is essential for testing the
validity of a claim. The interest must be lawful. It may arise in the course of
law, by an error, or as a result of a prior relationship with the individual on
whose behalf the payment is made. A legal proprietary interest in the property
in respect of which the payment is made, is not required at the part of the
person making the payment.

Only an existing interest, which the payment is meant to protect, is

contemplated by this section. Cases where an interest is established by the

1
Desai Himatsingji Joravarsingji v Bhavabhai Kayabhai, (1880) ILR 4 Bom 643 at 652
2
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd v Daelim Industrial Co Ltd, (2007)
3
Pollock and mulla footnote 87 and 88
 payment itself or forms a part of the same transaction as the payment are not
included.4

Moreover, the plaintiff must be interested in avoiding a loss or protecting an

interest that might be otherwise be lost to him. 5 The interest can be pecuniary
in nature.6 It should not be based solely on societal, sentimental or moral
obligations.7 It is sufficient for the plaintiff to have made the payment because
of apprehensions based on the belief that his interests will be harmed and that
making the payment was in his best interest.

II. The payment should be one which another is bound by law to pay.
i. What is the liability of the defendant?

An essential requirement for a claim to succeed is that the payment made by

the plaintiff should have been exclusively for the use and benefit of the
defendant. In case of a payment made under compulsion, it must have
discharged a legal liability of the defendant. If the court concludes that it was
actually the plaintiff’s obligation to pay, then his claim will fail.8

ii. The defendant is legally bound to pay.

An action to recover money paid is not maintainable unless the person from
whom reimbursement is sought was legally obligated to pay it. Furthermore,
the section cannot apply unless the other party’s obligation to pay existed at
the time when the payment in respect of which the suit was laid, was made.9

The term ‘bound by law’ as used in the s.69 does not mean bound by law to
pay to the plaintiff. It rather means the amount that the defendant might be
compelled to pay in a lawsuit. In Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria v. State of
Gondal,10 the Privy Council was of the opinion that the words cover
obligations of both contract and tort. Furthermore, they do not exclude
obligations of law which arise inter partes, whether by contract or tort, and are
not restricted public duties imposed by general law or statute. The section also
4
Veeraraghava lyer v K. Lakshmana lyer, (1913) 25 Mad LJ 312 at 314.
5
Ganga Sahai v Shiam Sunder Lal, AIR 1930 Oudh 266
6
A. Ranganaiki Ammal v A. Ramanuja Aiyangar, (1912) ILR 35 Mad 728.
7
Sadhu Laxmi Sundaramma v Sadhu Suryanarayana, AIR 1950 Mad. 274
8
Habibul Rahman v Sheonandan Singh, AIR 1928 Pat. 552 : 111 IC 243.
9
Banwarilal v Rajkishore Guru, (1945) ILR Nag 820 : AIR 1946 Ngp 21 .
10
Cite case
 includes cases of personal liabilities, and indirect liability of landowners to
pay of liability imposed on land owned by them.11

i. Bound by Statute

There is another class of case in which the defendant, while not

primarily liable to third parties, is required by statute to discharge a
liability which would otherwise fall on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff
has been compelled to pay as a consequence of the defendant’s default.
This section would apply to any liabilities that the landowners are
liable for under the revenue law, regardless of whether the liability is
personal or not.12

ii. Bound by Agreement

The liability for which payment may be made under this section need
not be statutory. In Mothooranath Chattopadhya v. KristoKumar
Ghose, it was held that the words ‘bound by law’ did not restrict the
section to liabilities created by statutes. Liabilities which arose out of
contracts between parties were also included.13

III. The person who is interested in the payment should actually pay it.
The section clearly provides that reimbursement will be granted only after the
claimant has actually paid the amount.14 The plaintiff must have made an actual or
virtual payment of money. Neither the incurring of a liability nor the loss of goods can
be treated as money paid.15

11
P&M pg. 1176 para 2&5
12
Mariam v Narayanan Thrarhar Nambooripad, AIR 1965 Ker. 55 .
13
Mothooranath Chattopadhya v KristoKumar Ghose, (1878) 4 Cal 369 , 373;
14
Bhikham Singh v Sant Bakhsh Singh, AIR 1933 Oudh 478 .
15
P&M pg 1175 para 3