Seshagiri Aiyar, J.
1. This is a simple case and should not be complicated by importing irrelevant considerations. It is a suit by the plaintiffs for money which was decreed against them and the defendants father jointly, but which the plaintiffs alone have been compelled to pay to the judgment-creditor. Any defence which would go to show that the decree should not have been a joint one against the defendants father and the plaintiffs will not be open in this suit. If any authority was needed for that position, reference may be made to Siva Panda v. Jujusti Panda 12 M.L.J. 13. If a liability has been created by the decree, the only question that can be raised in defence is the extent of the liability. That question was not tried by the Subordinate Judge, apparently in the belief that contribution is not claimed in the suit because the plaintiffs have exaggerated their claim and claimed the whole of the decree amount instead of claiming a portion of it, and also on the ground that if accounts were taken between the plaintiffs and the defendants, some money may be due to the defendants themselves. The fact that the plaintiffs have exaggerated their claim is no ground for dismissing the suit. The other ground, namely, that if accounts were taken, the plaintiffs would be found liable to the defendants is not a defence open in this suit. As I said before, this is a suit upon a joint liability created by the decree, and the only question is what is the extent to which the defendants are liable. The suit has not been tried in that light. I must, therefore, reverse the judgment of the lower Court and remand the case for disposal on the merits.
2. Costs will abide the result.