Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: Obligation of Person Enjoying Benefit of Non-Gratuitous Act

Section 70 deals with an obligation resembling a contract. It prevents a person from retaining a lawful benefit received from another when that benefit was not intended to be provided free of charge.

Updated: September 20, 2026

Text of Section 70

70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act.

Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.

The official text can be verified in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 on India Code.

Meaning of Section 70

Section 70 is placed in Chapter V of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, dealing with certain relations resembling those created by contract. It applies where there may be no enforceable contract between the parties, but one person has lawfully conferred a benefit on another without intending it as a gift and the recipient has enjoyed that benefit.

The provision is restitutionary in nature. Its purpose is to require compensation or restoration where the statutory conditions are fulfilled, so that a person does not retain a non-gratuitous benefit without making appropriate recompense.

Essential Conditions for Applying Section 70

The Supreme Court has consistently identified three essential requirements for a claim under Section 70:

  1. Lawful act or delivery: one person must lawfully do something for another person or lawfully deliver something to that person.
  2. No intention to act gratuitously: the person conferring the benefit must not intend to provide it free of charge.
  3. Enjoyment of the benefit: the other person must accept or enjoy the benefit of the act or thing delivered.

When these conditions are established, the beneficiary is bound to compensate the person who conferred the benefit or, where appropriate, restore the thing delivered.

Illustrations Given in the Act

Illustration (a): A, a tradesman, leaves goods at B's house by mistake. B treats the goods as his own. B is bound to pay A for them.
Illustration (b): A saves B's property from fire. A is not entitled to compensation from B if the circumstances show that A intended to act gratuitously.

These illustrations show why intention and actual enjoyment of the benefit are important. Mere performance of an act does not automatically create a right to compensation.

Section 70 as a Quasi-Contractual or Restitutionary Obligation

Liability under Section 70 does not depend on proving breach of a subsisting contract. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons, AIR 1962 SC 779, explained the three statutory conditions and treated the liability as arising when a lawful, non-gratuitous benefit is enjoyed by another. In Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC 1218, the Court reiterated that the obligation is distinct from a claim for specific performance or damages for breach of contract.

This distinction matters because Section 70 can operate in appropriate cases even where an enforceable contract is absent, provided the statutory requirements are independently satisfied.

Compensation or Restoration

The remedy stated in Section 70 is either compensation in respect of the benefit conferred or restoration of the thing done or delivered, depending on the circumstances. The provision does not itself prescribe a fixed formula for compensation. The claimant must establish the factual basis of the benefit and the conditions required by the section.

Section 70 and Government Transactions

Section 70 has particular significance where work, goods or services have been accepted and enjoyed by the Government even though the alleged contractual arrangement is not enforceable as a government contract. Supreme Court decisions including B.K. Mondal and Mulamchand explain that restitution may be available when the requirements of Section 70 are proved. This does not validate an otherwise invalid contract; the claim arises from the statutory restitutionary obligation.

Difference Between Section 65 and Section 70

Section 65 concerns restoration of an advantage received under an agreement discovered to be void or a contract that becomes void. Section 70, by contrast, applies to a lawful non-gratuitous act or delivery whose benefit is enjoyed by another and does not require the claim to be founded on an agreement that later becomes void.

Practical Points

  • A claimant should plead and prove all three statutory ingredients of Section 70.
  • The act or delivery must be lawful.
  • Evidence should show that the benefit was not intended to be gratuitous.
  • The defendant must have enjoyed or accepted the benefit.
  • The relief is restitutionary compensation or restoration, not contractual damages merely by invoking Section 70.
Legal note: The application of Section 70 depends on the facts, pleadings, evidence and any governing statutory or contractual framework. Judicial decisions should be checked for the precise proposition relevant to a particular dispute.