JUDGMENT Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. Second appeal by defendant against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Ramnad, in A.S. No. 100 of 1921. 2. The, only question which has to be considered in this appeal is, whether the Courts below ware right in decreeing the plaintiffs claim for contribution based upon Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. A common channel irrigated the lands of the plaintiff and the defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that he repaired this channel after informing the defendant, and that the defendant was hound to contribute towards the repairs made. Both the Courts found that the repairs were done, that the defendant was benefited by the repair, and that the plaintiff did not intend to bear all the expenses himself. 3. It was urged before me on the authority of the decision in Sundara Aiyar v. Ananthapadbhanaba Aiyar 70 Ind. Cas. 405 : (1922) M.W.N. 608 : 16 L.W. 231 : 31 M.L.T. 164 : 43 M.L.J. 271 : A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 64 that the plaintiff could not succeed, because he was also benefited by the act. Observations in Viswanadha Vijia Kumara Bangaroo v. R.G. Orr 45 Ind. Cas. 786 were also relied upon. Both the Courts have followed Damodara MudaUar v. Secretary of Stale for India 18 M. 88 : 4 M.L.J. 205 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 410 which was a similar case. On the findings of the first Court and also on the findings of the lower Appellate Court, it appears tome to be clear that, all the circumstances needed for the application of Section 70 of the Contract Act have been found to exist. 4. I, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with costs.