(1.) This is an appeal by Sheodan Singh against the order of the Additional Civil Judge of Etah by which he affirmed the judgment and decree of the Additional Munsif of Etah, dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff. The circumstances in which the suit was brought by Sheodan Singh were these:
(2.) One, Lokan Singh, made a mortgage on 18th August 1928, for a sum of Rs. 100, in favour of Prithi Raj Singh. On 13th December 1928, another mortgage for Rs. 100 was executed by Tara Singh and others also in favour of the same Prithi Raj Singh. Later, on 9th November 1929, the mortgagors of both the mortgage deeds jointly executed a sale deed of the equity of redemption in favour of Sheodan Singh, the plaintiff appellant, and the defendant-respondents or their predecessors in interest. Prithi Raj Singh filed a suit against his mortgagors as well as the transferees, and got a decree on the basis of his mortgage deeds on 4th December 1933. Thereafter, Sheodan Singh made an application under the Encumbered Estates Act. There, Sheodan Singh took no steps to implead his co-debtors, namely, the other vendees from Lokan Singh, Tara Singh and others, or to get the debt apportioned between himself and the other vendees under Section 9 (5) (a), Encumbered Estates Act. In the result the entire amount due to Prithi Raj Singh was realised from Sheodan Singh. Thereafter the present suit was tiled by Sheodan Singh for contribution under Section 82, Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant-respondents and their main ground was that as Sheodan Singh had failed to get the debt apportioned between himself and his co-debtors in the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act, he could not maintain the suit for contribution under Section 82, Transfer of Property Act. There were other issues also raised, but the Courts Below have dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable and have accepted the contention advanced on behalf of the defendant-respondents in that connection.