Skip to content


Babu Ram Vs. Badri Das and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in95Ind.Cas.689
AppellantBabu Ram
RespondentBadri Das and anr.
Cases ReferredRam Sarup v. Baij Nath
Excerpt:
contribution - costs, joint decree for, satisfied by one defendant--suit for contribution, maintainability of. - .....a decree of a small cause court. the parties to this suit were co-defendants in a previous suit. a joint decree for costs was passed against them and the plaintiff claims contribution. the suit has been dismissed on the broad ground that no suit for contribution lies in respect of a joint decree for costs unless the plaintiff can prove a special equity. in support of this proposition the court below relies on mulla singh v. jagannath singh 6 ind. cas. 684 : 32 a. 585 : 7 a.l.j. 720. that case can no longer be considered an authority for the proposition stated in the head-note. its authority has been gravely shaken by subsequent decisions of this court and in particular by the decisions in ram sarup v. baij nath 58 ind. cas. 324 : 45 a. 77 : 18 a.l.j. 872 : 2 u. p. l. r. (a.) 299. and.....
Judgment:

1. This is a revision against a decree of a Small Cause Court. The parties to this suit were co-defendants in a previous suit. A joint decree for costs was passed against them and the plaintiff claims contribution. The suit has been dismissed on the broad ground that no suit for contribution lies in respect of a joint decree for costs unless the plaintiff can prove a special equity. In support of this proposition the Court below relies on Mulla Singh v. Jagannath Singh 6 Ind. Cas. 684 : 32 A. 585 : 7 A.L.J. 720. That case can no longer be considered an authority for the proposition stated in the head-note. Its authority has been gravely shaken by subsequent decisions of this Court and in particular by the decisions in Ram Sarup v. Baij Nath 58 Ind. Cas. 324 : 45 A. 77 : 18 A.L.J. 872 : 2 U. P. L. R. (A.) 299. and Parsotam Das v. Lachmi Narain 69 Ind. Cas. 688 : 45 A. 99 : 20 A.L.J. 890 : A.I.R. 1923 All. 67. In both these cases a suit for contribution was allowed and in the former the rule was laid down that a claim for contribution lies in respect of costs in the absence of any special reason to the contrary. There is a considerable weight of authority of other High Courts to the same effect. I may refer to Keshava Vithal Oltikar v. Hari Ramkrishna Oltikar 80 Ind. Cas. 526 : 48 B. 351 : 26 Bom. L.R. 218 : A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 318.; Mahabir Prasad v. Darbhangi Thakur 51 Ind. Cas. 697 : 4 P.L.J. 486 : (1919) Pat. 289. and Bhagwan Das v. Rajpal Singh 63 Ind. Cas. 276 : 21 O.C. 148. The last mentioned case is a decision of Mr. Justice Lindsay and myself as Judicial Commissioners of Oudh. The true rule I conceive to be that laid down in Ram Sarup v. Baij Nath 58 Ind. Cas. 324 : 45 A. 77 : 18 A.L.J. 872 : 2 U.P.L.R. (A.) 299., namely, that prima facie a right of contribution exists between persons against whom a joint decree for costs has been passed and that it is for a defendant seeking to avoid liability to show some equity which entitles him to exemption. No such equity has been shown in the present case. I accordingly modify the decree of the Court below and give the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 16-13-4 with proportionate costs in both Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //