Wallace, J.

1. The original suit was by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,115 and odd which he claimed to have been paid by him on behalf of the defendant. The facts of the case are somewhat complicated but i6 is not necessary to set out more than the following. One Parvathi Amma and C. Lakshmana Rao executed two mortgages, Exs. A and B, in favour of one Sankar Rao. The three items in the present plaint were part of the mortgage property. Item 1 is called Kodipadi arwar property which belonged to Lakshmana Rao, who sold it to Siva Rao, who sold it to the plaintiff. The other items 2 and 3 were brought to sale in execution of a money decree against Lakshmana Rao in favour of the defendant and were purchased by him. The mortgagee sued on his mortgage, got a decree and brought to sale the Kodipadi arwar property and item 2. The plaintiff who had just bought the Kodipadi arwar property from Siva Rao in order to have the sale cancelled deposited along with Siva Rao the sale amount and had the sale cancelled. He now claims contribution from the defendant towards this amount which he had spent. Both the lower Courts had dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals.

2. The plaintiff i