Madras High Court
Vayangara Vadaka Vittil Manja vs Pariyangot Padingara Kuruppath ... on 31 July, 1883
Equivalent citations: (1883)ILR 7MAD89
JUDGMENT Kernan, J.
1. The Judge had, we assume, before him in making his decree, the Suit No. 476 and the Appeal Suit No. 458. He states in paragraph 5 of his judgment: "It was the present plaintiff who contended in the former suit to be the jenmi and was defeated. It appears that the present plaintiff had colluded with the defendant, and that the present defendant was a kanamdar."
2. The present plaintiff was, in fact, the real defendant in the former suit, and it was his untrue defence that caused the expense, which was decreed against both the defendants in the former suit. The Judge also finds that the plaintiff here colluded with the defendant here in the former suit to endeavour to defeat the plaintiff there.
3. Acting on the principles laid down in Suput Singh v. Imrit Tewari I.L.R. 5 Cal. 720, we think that the plaintiff is not entitled to contribution against the defendant.
4. The Judge laid down, rather too widely, a rule that there cannot be contribution for costs between two parties ordered to pay them.
5. Whether there is to be contribution, depends on the nature of the defence by each party, and whether the defence was made on reasonable grounds.
6. We dismiss the petition.