The principle of Section 37 and Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to the present cases. The effect of the partition decree is that there is a surrender of a portion of a joint right in exchange for a similar right of a co-sharer. In other words, the single obligation of the lessee to pay rent to the lessors under the lease is converted into several obligations to pay rent to the lessors individually, that is, to the petitioner and defendant No. 4.

1. It appears that the petitioner in all these applications filed 11 Small Cause Court Suits for realisation of his share of monthly rental of Rs. 250.00 in regard to a cinema building located in Siwan, and the case of the petitioner was that the cinema building belonged to him and defendant No. 4, who jointly executed a lease of the building in favour of defendant No. 1 on a monthly rental of Rs. 375. The document of lease was executed on the 26th of April 1955. The case of the petitioner is that there was a subsequent partition suit between the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 and on the 14th of Juno, 1958, there was a compromise decree in the partition suit. By virtue of this compromise decree most of the properties of the joint family were partitioned, but the cinema building could not be partitioned. It was decided that the petitioner Badri Prasad should have two-thirds share and defendant No. 4 Jagarnath Prasad should have one-third share in this cinema building. Notice of the partition was given to defendant No. 1, who agreed to the arrangement and commenced paying the sum of Rs. 250 per month as rent to the petitioner for his share and Rs. 125 per month to defendant No. 4 as his share.

2. The suits were contested by defendants 1 to 3 on the ground that there Was payment of the rent claimed by the petitioner and in any case that the suits were not maintainable only for the petitioners share of the rent. It was contended that the petitioner should have brought suits for the entire rent mentioned in the lease and not only for the petitioners share of the rent of the cinema building. Defendants 2 and 3 also said that they were separate from defendant No. 1 and were not liable for any rent due to the petitioner under the lease. Their case was that they were not parties to the contract of lease and so they cannot be made liable for the payment of rent. The case of defendant No. 4 was that the compromise decree was fraudulent and the plaintiff was not entitled to two-thirds share of the rent, but only to a one-third share of it.

3. Upon these rival contentions of the parties the lower Court has held that there was a valid compromise decree between the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 in the partition suit and that the plaintiff was entitled to two-thirds of the rent of the cinema house. The lower Court rejected the plea of payment put forward on behalf of defendants 1 to 3. But the lower Court took the view that the suits were not maintainable because the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 being joint lessors, the plaintiff alone could not maintain a suit for his share of rent separately. In the ultimate result, therefore, the lower Court has dismissed all the suits.

4. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted by learned Counsel that the lower Court is erroneous in law in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to bring a suit for his share of rental for the cinema building. In our opinion the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. It is the admitted position in the present case that there was a partition suit! between the petitioner and defendant No. 4 and there was a compromise decree in that suit on the 13th of June, 1958, by which the plaintiff was allotted two-thirds share of the cinema building and defendant No. 4 was allotted one-third share. In our opinion the principle of sec. 37 of the Transfer of Property Act governs the present cases. Sec.37 is in the following terms:

"37. When, in consequence of a transfer, property is divided and held in several shares, and thereupon the benefit of any obligation relating to the property as a whole passes from one to several owners of the property, the corresponding duty shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary amongst the owners, be performed in favour of each of such owners in proportion to the value of his share in the property, provided that the duty can be severed and that the severance does not subs