Joint contractual liability and equitable contribution permit sharing rent suit costs, but not separate arrears undertakings.

Joint obligors may claim contribution where the liability is shared, because Section 43 of the Contract Act applies between persons equally bound to perform the obligation. A separate undertaking by one purchaser to clear earlier arrears did not make him a co-promisor against the other parties, so no contribution lay for the 1342 Fasli arrears. Equitable contribution could, however, extend to costs awarded in the rent suit where both sides were responsible for the unpaid rent and no countervailing equity barred sharing the burden. The result was partial liability, with contribution sustained on the remaining heads but excluded for the earlier arrears.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was liable to contribute at all under the law of contract and equity; (ii) whether the appellant was liable to contribute for the arrears relating to the year 1342 Fasli; and (iii) whether contribution could be claimed in respect of costs imposed in the rent suit.

Issue (i): whether the appellant was liable to contribute at all under the law of contract and equity.

Analysis: The liability for rent was treated as a joint contractual liability, and the parties were in the position of joint promisors. The distinction between reimbursement and contribution was material: reimbursement under Section 69 of the Contract Act applies to a person interested in paying money which another is bound to pay, whereas contribution under Section 43 of the Contract Act applies between persons equally bound to perform the obligation. Since the plaintiffs and the appellant were co-obligors in respect of rent, a claim for contribution was maintainable.

Conclusion: The appellant was liable to contribute in principle under Section 43 of the Contract Act.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant was liable to contribute for the arrears relating to the year 1342 Fasli.

Analysis: Any undertaking by the appellant in the sale deed to discharge the arrears for that year was only a matter between him and his vendor. The plaintiffs were not parties to that arrangement and could not treat the appellant and themselves as co-promisors for the arrears of 1342 Fasli. The co-promisor relationship for that year remained between the plaintiffs and the earlier holder, and the decree against the representatives of that holder was therefore the proper one.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to contribute for the arrears of 1342 Fasli.

Issue (iii): whether contribution could be claimed in respect of costs imposed in the rent suit.

Analysis: Costs imposed by a court do not ordinarily fall within the joint promise itself, but equitable contribution may still be awarded where fairness requires it. On the facts, the appellant and the plaintiffs were both responsible for withholding the rent, though each only for his own share. There was no joint wrong disentitling the plaintiffs to recover contribution, and no equity in favour of the appellant to resist sharing the burden of the costs attributable to his share of the rent arrears.

Conclusion: Contribution towards costs in the rent suit was recoverable against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of excluding the appellant's liability for the arrears of 1342 Fasli, while sustaining contribution on the remaining heads, including costs, on the basis of joint contractual liability and equitable adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-obligor may be liable to contribute under the law of contribution where the liability is joint, but a separate private undertaking between one party and a third person does not create co-promisor liability as against the other co-obligors, and equitable contribution may extend to litigation costs where fairness so requires.

---