Mortgage contribution between co-mortgagors is governed by special property law, not general contract rules, absent a contrary agreement.

Where contribution to discharge a mortgage debt arises between co-mortgagors, the special mortgage scheme under the Transfer of Property Act governs the parties' rights. Section 82 provides rateable contribution and section 92 recognises subrogation on redemption, so section 43 of the Contract Act and general equitable apportionment do not apply unless there is a contract to the contrary. The text also notes that an alleged oral arrangement altering contribution must be strictly proved; unsupported testimony and inconsistent circumstances may be insufficient. On pleadings, mortgage relief and subrogation-based adjustment may still be worked out, but the court must compute the actual payments, interest and property values to fix statutory shares.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the liability of co-mortgagors to contribute towards discharge of a mortgage debt is governed by section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, so as to exclude section 43 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and any appeal to general equitable distribution in the absence of a contract to the contrary. (ii) Whether the alleged oral arrangement altering the basis of contribution was proved and what relief could be granted on the plaint as framed.

Issue (i): Whether the liability of co-mortgagors to contribute towards discharge of a mortgage debt is governed by section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, so as to exclude section 43 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and any appeal to general equitable distribution in the absence of a contract to the contrary.

Analysis: The statutory scheme governing mortgages was treated as controlling the field. Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 prescribes rateable contribution where mortgaged property belongs to persons with distinct and separate rights, while section 92 confers the right of subrogation on a redeeming co-mortgagor. Section 43 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, being a general provision on joint promisors, was held inapplicable where the liability arose out of a mortgage and the special mortgage law supplied the rule. The Court rejected resort to free-standing equitable apportionment and held that the parties could vary the statutory position only by a contract to the contrary.

Conclusion: The contribution claim had to be determined under section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with section 92, and not under section 43 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or general equity.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged oral arrangement altering the basis of contribution was proved and what relief could be granted on the plaint as framed.

Analysis: The alleged agreement was based on the testimony of a single interested witness given many years after the event, without the support of the only other person said to have been present. The surrounding circumstances, including the absence of a signed draft and the conduct of the parties, were treated as inconsistent with final consensus. The Court therefore found the special agreement unproved. On relief, the plaint, though inartfully drafted, substantially sought mortgage relief and subrogation-based adjustment rather than an impermissible personal decree. The matter nevertheless required an enquiry into the precise sum paid, interest, and values of the mortgaged properties in order to work out the statutory shares under section 82.

Conclusion: The alleged agreement was not proved, personal relief was unavailable, and the matter had to be remitted for computation of liability and appropriate mortgage relief under the statute.

Final Conclusion: The statutory basis of contribution was upheld, the asserted private arrangement failed, and the dispute was sent back for further enquiry and working out of the parties' respective liabilities in accordance with the mortgage law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contribution arises out of a mortgage, the special provisions of the Transfer of Property Act govern the rights of the parties, and in the absence of a proved contract to the contrary, section 82 determines the mode of contribution and excludes recourse to the general rule in section 43 of the Contract Act or to abstract equitable distribution.

---