Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The defendants 8 and 11 to 14 (5 of the legal representatives of the 3rd defendant who died pending the suit) are the appellants in the above second appeal. The suit was brought by plaintiff, one of the five members of a temple committee, for contribution from the other four committee members in respect of moneys which had been recovered from the plaintiff above in execution of the decree obtained by the trustee of the Madura Menakshi temple against the members of the committee (inclusive of plaintiff and 3rd defendant) for moneys which they had spent out of the temple funds in previous litigation carried on by them in the High Court, the High Court, having in that previous litigation directed that committee members should pay such costs out of their private funds and not out of the Devasthanam funds. (See the last sentence of the judgment in Alagiri Swami Naicker v. Sunder eswara Iyer (1898) I.L.R. 21 M. 278 at p. 287)

2. The lower courts decided that the 3rd defendants legal representatives (sons and grand sons) are liable to discharge 3rd defendants debt to plaintiff, the debt being based on 3rd defendants liability to contribute his quota of the amou