JUDGMENT

Malik, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal in a suit for contribution A suit was filed by the landlord against Sardar Har Bakhsh Singh and Sujan Singh for arrears of rent The suit was decreed on the 17th September, 1932, and a joint decree was passed against both. On the 19th April, 1933, Har Bakhsh Singh paid his share of the liability, that is Rs. 600. The decree holder then applied for execution of the decree as resgards the balance. Har Bakhsh Singh filed objections that be had paid his share of the liability and was not liable to pay anything more. The objection of Har Bakhsh Singh was dismissed and he appealed against that order. In the appealiate Court he filed an application for stay. The applicat on was granted on condition that he deposited cash security in the executing Court. The order in is not before me, but that is what the lower Courts have found and that finding is not disputed. On the 13th July, 1936, Har Bakhsh Singh deposited a sum of Rs. 585. The tender Ex. A is on the record and it appears that it was not properly filled in and it makes no mention of the fact that the money was being deposited as security in accordance with the orders of the appellate Court. The money remained in deposit during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the 7th September 1938. The decree-holder however, did not apply for payment of this money and this money was not paid to him till the 6th January 1939. The present suit for contribution was filed on the 5th January, 1942. The suit has been decreed.

2. In this appeal, filed on behalf of Sujan Singh, three points are taken. The first point is that the suit was barred by limitation, the second is that the Appellant was not liable to pay interest from the date of the deposit that is, the 13th July 1936, but from the date when the amount was paid out an i if the Court held that the payment was made on the 6th January 1939, then he could only be made liable to pay interest from that date and the last is that the Appellant was not liable to pay any special costs.

3. It may be noticed that no objection is taken that the money deposited on the 13th July 1936 represented the share of the liabilities of Sujan Singh.

4. u/s 149 of the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939 a co tenant who has paid rent on a count of another co-tenant of from whom such rent has been recovered may sue such co-tenant for the amount so paid. The period of limitation for such a suit for contribution is mentioned in Schedule IV, Group A, Serial No. 3 as three years from the date of payment or recovery. The question, therefore, is whether the suit was filed within three years of the date of payment or recovery.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the payment must be deemed to have been made on the date the money was deposited, that is, the 13th July 1936, or, at any date, on the date when the appeal was dismissed, that is the 7th September 1938, after which date the decree-holder was entitled to take away the money.

6. Learned Counsel has relied on certain rullings under Article 99 of the Limitation Act. Under Article 99 a suit for contribution has to be filed within three years from the date of payment. In Gahar Ali Hawlader v. Abdul Owahab Shikdar (1929) 56 Cal 192 a landlord had obtained a decree for arrears of rent against his tenants. When the decree was executed and the property was advertised for sale, one of the judgment-debtors deposited the entire decretal amount. The deposit was made on the 4th February 1920 and the Court on the same date accepted the money in satisfaction thereof. The money however, remained in Court till the 14th February 1920 and in the suit for contribution the Plaintiff wanted to compute the period of limitation from that date, that is the 14th February. The Court held that the date of payment was the date when the money was deposited to the decree-holder's account in satisfaction of the decree.

7. The facts of that case are materially different from the fact