John Wallis, C.J.
1. In this case the appellant, first defendant, claimed certain land which was included in the plaintiff's patta and a compromise decree was arrived at which awarded him the land but provided that he should pay the assessment (annas eight) to the plaintiff, who was the registered pattadar and liable to Government for the land revenue. Subsequent to that time, the Government increased the land revenue upon the land, but there was no separate registry in the name of the first defendant. The razinamah decree only provided that the defendant should pay the plaintiff annas eight by way of assessment and I cannot extract from that any implied agreement that any more should be paid, or, on the other hand, that that should be the only liability of the defendant in respect of assessment. I think that, as regards the additional assessment imposed upon the land subsequently, the matter must be governed by the decision of the Full Bench in Rajah of Vizianagram v. Setrucherla Somasekhararz 26 M. 686 (F.B.) which has been recently followed in Narain Pai v. Appu 28 Ind. Cas. 466 . See also Alayakammal v. Subbaraya Goundan 28 M, 493 The rule laid down in Bajah of Vizianagram v. Setrucherla Somasekhararaz 26 M. 686 (F.B.) is that where the revenue is paid by the registered holder of land in which various people are interested, as that revenue is a charge upon the land, the registered bolder is in the position of a mortgagor of a part of the mortgaged property. In these circumstances, a mortgagor of a part of the mortgaged property, under Section 82 of Transfer of Property Act, has a right to contribution. Whether that section applied or not, Rajah of Vizianagram v. Setrucherla Somasekhararaz 26 M. 686 (F.B.) is an authority for the proposition that where, as here, a registered holder who is only interested in a portion of the land has paid the whole assessment, he is in the position of a co-mortgagor and has a right to contribution as against the other persons interested in the land on which the revenue was a charge. That is quite sufficient to support the decision of the District Judge in this case.
2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
3. I agree. This case is governed by the rulings in Rajah of Vizianagram V. Setrucheral Somasekhararaz 26 M. 686 (F.B.) and Naraina Pal v. Appu 28 Ind. Cas. 466 both as regards plaintiff's right and as regards limitation.