Gopi Nath Bagdi and Others vs Ishur Chundra Bagdi and Others

Pigot, J.—As to the general principle upon which the learned pleader for the appellants stated the case to us, we think we are bound by the case of Kinu Ram Das v. Mozaffer Hosain Shaha ILR Cal. 809 which we are unable to distinguish in principle from the case made on behalf of the appellants; and we think that a payment of a nature so peculiar as that u/s 174 would need some indication in the Act itself in connection with that section before we should feel at liberty to accede to the appellants'' contention by declaring that, besides their right to contribution personally, they had also a right to a charge on the property so far as the shares of their co-tenants are concerned for the amount paid by them under the provisions of that section. There is nothing in the section which contemplates any such right or privilege on the part of the person paying, and we do not think we should add such a provision as that to Section 174.

We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.