Straight, J. and Duthoit, J.:— On the 12th May, 1867, Pancham Singh, defendant-appellant, mortgaged jointly with one Dungar Singh, the several two biswas zamindari shares in mauza Bithal Kutubpur to Share Singh and others for Rs. 200. On the 6th August, 1877, the mortgagee brought a suit to recover Rs. 507 principal and interest by enforcement of lien against the mortgaged share, and on the 18th of the same month obtained a decree. Before execution had been taken out, one Lati Ram got a judgment against Dungar Singh, and having attached two biswas share, it was brought to sale, and purchased by the plaintiff-respondent on the 20th June, 1878. Subsequently the obligees decree-holders under be bond of May, 1867, proceeded to execute their decree, and attached the two biswas share of Dungar Singh, of which the plaintiff-respondent had become the purchaser. In order to save it from sale he on the 29th June, 1878, paid Rs. 643-8-0, the total amount of the mortgage-money, with interest then due, and he now sues to recover from Pancham Singh, the co-mortgagor of Dungar Singh half that amount, Rs. 321-12-2½ by enforcement of lien against two biswas share of mauza Bithal Kutubpur. Both the lower Courts decreed the claim to in entirety, and the only plea pressed by the defendant-appellant in appeal to this Court is that the decisions of the Munsif and the Subordinate Judge cannot be maintained in so for as they grant the plaintiff-respondent enforcement of lien. We do not concur in this contention. It appears to that, when the plaintiff-respondent discharged the whole amount of the mortgage-debt, he not only became entitled to a contribution of half the sum from the defendant-appellant, but having acquired the rights of the mortgagee, it was competent for him to assert a line on the two biawas share of the defendant-appellant, for the proportion borne by it to the original plege. In our opinion, therefore, the judgments of the lower Courts were right and we dismiss this appeal with cost.
Appeal dismissed.