NAGENDRA NATH ROY Vs. JUGAL KISHORE ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution instituted on the allegation that the plaintiff and the defendants who are governed by the Mitakshara law were the lessees of a colliery named the Palashdiha colliery: that the landlords obtained a decree for arrears of rent in respect of the said colliery and brought to sale another colliery named the Lachipur colliery belonging to them in execution of the said decree, that the father of the appellants, that Is to say, the Defendant No. 1. Ashutosh Roy, purchased the same in the name of his son Nagendra Nath Roy, the first appellant, that the plaintiffs mother, as guardian of the plaintiff, in order to save the property deposited Rs. 3,771-0-6 with the permission of the Court and had the sale set aside, and that therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount, together with costs of the deposit and interest amounting in ail to Rs. 6,081-8-6.

(2.) The Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are the father and the uncle of the plaintiff admitted the plaintiff's claim and the Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 compromised the case with him. The only contesting defendant was the Defendant No. 1, the father of the present appellants. The defence of this defendant was that the parties were not governed by the Mitakshara law, that the plaintiff had no share in the property and so was not interested In making the payment, that the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 really made the payment in the name of plaintiff and that the payment was a voluntary one, and consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to be reimbursed.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has granted the plaintiff a decree as against the appellants for a half of the amount of Rs. 3,571-0-6 and also of Rs. 50, together with interest and costs, the said half representing the appellant's 8 annas share in the property. He has also passed a decree against the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on their own admission for an amount proportionate to their share. Against this decree the present appeal has been preferred.