AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Assuming that the circumstances of the payment of Rs. 140 out of the purchase money by defendant 1 for defendant 2, which are not fully
disclosed by the record before us, are not these in which defendant 1 could be subrogated to any vendor''s charge, this being a suit for partition,
even without any charge the equity arising in defendant 1''s favour from his payment for defendant 2 can properly be enforced by the Court: cf.
Swan v. Swan [1819] 8 Price 518 and Leigh v. Dickeson [1885] 15 Q.B.D. 60. The plaintiff is a transferee from defendant 2 and is found to have
had notice of this payment of Rs. 140 by defendant 1.
We see no sufficient reason to differ from the learned Judge''s decision except that there does not appear to us to be any reason for allowing
interest at a higher rate than 6 per cent. The interest allowed on the Rs. 140 in defendant 1''s favour from 5th May 1914 to 22nd July 1918 will be
reduced to that rate, amounting to Rs. 35-3-0. In other respects the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay respondent 1''s costs