A joint tortfeasor is liable for the entire damages caused by the wrongful act, even if the other joint tortfeasor is not liable due to limitation.

AGARWALA, J.:- This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of damages for wrongful attachment of property. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

2. Two persons, Khawja Baksh and Riaz Uddin, were adjudged insolvents on the application of the appellant Nawal Kishore. In the insolvency proceedings certain property was attached by the Official Receiver as belonging to the insolvents. This property consisted of a big building in which was housed a printing press and which contained nineteen shops. Eleven of the shops and the hall housing the printing machines had been purchsed by Bishambar Nath Khazanchi, the original plaintiff in the suit, prior to the insolvency proceedings.

Bishambar Nath Khazanchi objected to the attachment and sent a notice to the Official Receiver to release the property. As the property was not released he filed a suit for the declaration of his title on 11-4-1935. The property was, however, released during the pendency of the suit on 10-11-1936. The plaintiff got the plaint amended, and the suit after the amendment was for damages on two counts, Rs.2000/- for damages to the building and Rs.1884/14/- at the rate of Rs.333/5/4 per month for loss of income from the building which the plaintiff suffered on account of its being in possession of the Official Receiver. He also claimed pendente lite and future mesne profits at the same rate.

The trial Court dismissed the whole suit. The lower appellate Court maintained the decree of dismissal against Nawal Kishore but decreed the suit against the Official Receiver for a sum of Rs.812/8/-. The Official Receiver appealed to this Court against the decree passed by the lower appellate Court, and the plaintiff also appealed to this, Court both as against Nawal Kishore and the Official Receiver. The appeal filed by the Official Receiver abated while it was pending in this Court because Bishambar Nath Khazanchi died during that time and his heirs were not brought on the record within time.

In the appeal brought by the plaintiff his heirs were brought on the record and so that appeal proceeded and it was held by this Court that Nawal Kishore was equally liable along with the Official Receiver and the dismissal of the suit against him was set aside and the case was remanded to the Court below for passing a decree for damages. As against the Official Receiver however it was held that the limitation for a suit against him had expired before the suit had been brought in the Court below. No relief, however, could be given to the Official Receiver because his own appeal had abated and the decree of the Court below passed against him, therefore, became final.

3. On remand the lower appellate Court held that Nawal Kishore was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,900/- on account of the damage caused to the building, and to damages for loss of income from 21-10-1934 to 10-11-1936 at the rate of Rs.333/5/4- per month.

4. Three points have been uregd on behalf of the appellant by Dr. Asthana. The first point urged is that it was not open to the Court below to pass a decree against Nawal Kishore for an amount in excess of Rs.812/8/- for which a decree had been passed against the Official Receiver. This argument was based upon S.6 (1) (b) of an English Act entitled (Married Women and Tort-feasors) Act, 1935 (25 and 26 Geo. V, C.30). The common law of contribution between joint tort-feasors was amended by that Act in England. S.6 (1) (b) is to the following effect:

"(b) if more than one action is brought in respect of that damage by or on behalf of the person by whom it was suffered, or for the benefit of the estate, or of the wife, husband, parent or child, of that person, against tort-feasors liable in respect of the damage (whether as joint tort-feasors or otherwise) the sums recoverable under the judgments given in those actions by way of damages shall not in the aggregate exceed the amount of the damages awarded by the judgment first given; and in any of those acti