1. The plaintiff appellant in this suit was a person who under a deed of gift executed by one Jagat Singh obtained a half share in certain property. The respondent Ram, Lal Singh is a person who received a half share in the same property by an entirely separate deed of gift from the same Jagat Singh. Beni Madho Singh and Zalim are certain persons claiming to be. the lawful owners of a certain share in that property. They brought a suit to recover their shares and they impleaded both Ram Lal Singh and Nand Lal Singh in the suit. Ram Lal Singh did not defend the suit, but Nand Lal Singh did and in the course of his pleadings he stated that Ram Lal Singh was at the bottom of the suit and that he had instigated the plaintiffs to sue. Part of the claim was decreed and part of the claim was dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed in respect to so much of their claim as was disallowed. Nand Lal Singh appealed in respect to so much of the claim as had been decreed against him. The plaintiff's appeal was allowed, and Nand Lal Singh's appeal was dismissed. Ram Lal Singh was a respondent to both the appeals. He contested neither, in the execution department, Ram Lal Singh pleaded that no portion of the share decreed to the plaintiffs should be taken from him but that it should all be taken from Nand Lal Singh. Nand Lal Singh opposed him. The Court held that each of them had in his hands half of the share decreed. The appellate decree, which is the decree of this Court in the plaintiff's appeal, shows dearly that this Court held that each defendant was separately liable in respect of the property which was in his hands. The order for costs was a joint one. The plaintiffs in the former suit have recover-ed the whole of their costs from Nand Lal Singh. He has now brought the present suit' for contribution, claiming half from the defendant Ram Lal Singh.
2. This is clearly not a case of joint tortfeasors. Ram Lal Singh derived his title to the property which was in, his hands by an entirely separate deed from Jagat Singh and Nand Lal Singh derived his title, such as it was, by a separate deed of gift. The two defendants were not at one in defending the suit. They were as a matter of fact opposed to each other. Paragraph 15 of the written statement of Nand Lal Singh shows this clearly. Ram Lal Singh in no way contested the suit, whereas Nand Lal Singh did and it . is quite clear that the extra costs that were incurred in that suit were due to the action of the present plaintiff Nand Lal Singh alone. The case is very much like that of Fakire v. Tasadduq Husain 19 A. 462 : A.W.N. (1897) 107 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S) 297. In this case there was no contract between the present parties. Each was in separate possession of property and there was nothing joint. Each was separately liable for the trespass that he had committed. Each trespass was committed separately, and each defendant's liability for mesne profits was entirely separate. The only thing common between them was that they were arrayed as defendants to the suit. We cannot find any equity in the present case that will enable us to hold that the respondent Ram Lal Singh is in any way liable to the plaintiff for a share of the costs that were recovered from him. The appeal is dismissed with costs to Ram Lal Singh.
3. It is to be noted that the action of the plaintiff is directed solely against Ram Lal Singh and not against the other respondents. This is clearly admitted before us in open Court.