JUDGMENT Dalal, J.
1. The plaintiff Madho Ram while he was recorded as lambardar of a certain property paid a certain sum of money as revenue on citation being issued to him by the revenue authorities. At that time though recorded as lambardar he had sold his property to the defendants who were really liable to pay the revenue. He sued the defendants in the Court of Small Causes for recovery of the sum. The pleas were that such a suit was cognizable by a revenue Court, and, secondly, that payment was a voluntary payment and not recoverable under any section of the Contract Act No suit can lie in the revenue Court because Madho Ram is no longer lambardar or cosharer and cannot sue either under Section 159 or 160, Tenancy Act of 1901. The payment was not gratuitous, and, in my opinion, Madho Ram paid lawfally because his name continued in the village record as lambardar and he was, therefore, bound to make the payment to Government, It was the fault of the defendants that they did not get the plaintiff's name removed from the village record on obtaining transfer of his property from him. In Tulsa Kuar v. Jageshar Prasad [1906] 28 All. 563 Banerji, J., held on similar facts that the payment was not made voluntarily or gratuitously and that therefore the case fell within the purview of Section 70, Contract Act. A similar view was taken in the case of Nath Prasad v. Baij Nath [1880] 3 All. 66 (F.B.). The learned counsel for the respondent quoted a ruling of 1881, Chunia v. Kundan Lal [1882] A.W.N. 150. So far as I understand the facts of that case, the plaintiff was hot recorded either as a cosharer or a lambardar at the date of the payment and was in no way bound to make any payment to Government. I dismiss this application in revision with costs.