Couch, C.J (after reading the question). — The suit appears to have been brought to recover arrears of rent for 28 years, and, it appears that one of the defendants Gourisunker had been in possession up to a certain time, and that then the possession had been transferred by sale and purchase from him to Mr. Gasper, and there was no joint liability. Each person was liable for the rent for the period daring which he or she had occupied, and the decree was, in the first; instance, made by the Munsif, apparently, in that form. The Principal Sadder Ameen appears to have modified that on an appeal, and to have declared that the rent was to be allowed for the whole time against the persons in possession, That was in reality the same thing, but leaving the period for which each would be liable to toe determined in the execution of the decree. Subsequently, the High Court appears from the proceedings to have declared that that was so, and Mr. Bagram, who represented Mr. Gasper was declared to be separately liable for the rent of 1259 (1853). Although these persons were joined in the suit in this way, yet we must treat the decree as what it must have been by law, a decree against one persons for the rent of one period and a decree against the other person for the rent of another; and I think such a decree as this, although it is on one piece of paper, is in fact two decrees, a separate decree against each for the sum for which each is liable. When, we come to apply to that the terms of s. 20 of the law of limitation, there is really no difficulty; the decree is to be kept in force against each, and to be treated as a separate decree against each, in such a ease as this, as it would in the case of persons sued for contribution because it is a separate liability, and each is liable only for his own share. I think that, although the decree is made in one-suit, it is in reality and substance a separate decree against each for the portion for which each ia declared to be liable.
We must answer to the question which is put to us that, in such a case as this, the proceedings are not sufficient to prevent the law of limitation applying to the other defendant.
The case will go hack to the Division Bench with that answer.