Brown vs Kantappen – clr volume 1 page 073

In the dispute between the plaintiff (a usufructuary entitled to a share of paddy land produce) and the defendants (owners deriving title from the original grant, who neglected grain tax payments), the court addressed whether a promise to reimburse could be implied where the plaintiff paid the grain tax to prevent loss of the land due to the defendants’ default. It was held that the law implies such a promise to reimburse in these circumstances, reaffirming the principle that one who pays another’s obligation under compulsion to preserve a common interest may have a right to recover from the party primarily liable. The decision relied upon precedents including Exall v. Partridge and Johnson v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., emphasizing that the inference of an implied promise arises from the