Pigot and Gordon, JJ.
1. We think this appeal must be dismissed. We quite agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge in this case, and it is unnecessary for us to do more as to the nature of the case than say that we agree with the District Judge. It may, however, be desirable to add this, that the suit, as framed, is necessarily a suit in the alternative. The plaintiffs are necessarily not aware whether any portion of the share of the rent to which the defendant No. 2 is entitled has or has not been satisfied by the first defendant in favour of the defendant No. 2. They believe that that has been done and, if so, there is no rent due except that part of it which admittedly falls to their, the plaintiffs' share; but if a portion of the rent additional to what would constitute the plaintiffs' share of it remains unpaid, or if the whole of the rent remains unpaid, the plaintiffs ask that the plaint shall be amended accordingly and the suit brought into conformity with the rule that, in the absence of special agreement between the tenant and the co-sharers to pay their rateable proportion of the rent, a suit by one of the co-sharers must be for the entire rent due, making his co-sharers defendants if they will not join as plaintiffs. The prayer in the plaint entirely provides, we think, for the evidence disclosing non-payment of a part of the rent, and should it appeal in the course of the hearing that a portion of the rent remains unpaid by the defendant in addition to an amount equal to the plaintiffs' share of the rent, the suit ought to be amended, as the plaintiff's in their alternative prayer ask that it should be. We add this rather ex abundanti cautela, because, in truth, what the District Judge has said means in effect that such is the character of the suit. We agree with the District Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs.