Velaither vs Nallatamby – clr volume 2 page 120

In the case between the assignee of a mortgage decree (plaintiff) and the landowner (defendant), the court addressed the issue of whether a law-implied promise requires the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for tax payments made to prevent the government’s sale of the mortgaged land for non-payment of tax. It was held that where one party is compelled to make a payment for a sum that another is legally obliged to pay, a legal implication arises requiring reimbursement by the responsible party. The principle rests on implied indemnity or guarantee recognized by analogous case law, including The Orchis and Edmunds vs. Wallingford. The reasoning reinforced that the absence of an express contract does not preclude legal responsibility if the circumstances demand an implied promise. The deci