Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. The point taken and argued with considerable strenuousness by Mr. K.V. Sesha Ayyangar, the learned vakil for the appellant in this second appeal is one of considerable legal interest. The respondent as plaintiff instituted the original suit for levying contribution from the defendant on the ground that both of them having been joint judgment-debtors under a decree, he the plaintiff was compelled to pay for the satisfaction and discharge of that decree the amount claimed in the plaint over and above the amount he was liable to pay as and for his share. The defence raised by the appellant before us was that the debt in respect of which the decree was passed by the Court was really the debt of a partnership in which the plaintiff and the defendant were partners and that therefore, firstly, the plaintiff was not entitled to sue for contribution and could, if at all, have only sued for a taking of the partnership accounts, and secondly, that, even if it should be held that the plaintiff could maintain such a suit, the defendant should have been permitted in equity to require such accounts to be taken and show thereon that the plaintiff would not be entit