JUDGMENT :

Stanley, J.:—

This appeal raises a question upon the true construction of section 295 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs under the provisions of that section to recover a ratable share of a sum of Rs. 1,100 alleged to have been realized by sale of the property of a common judgment-debtor. Hira Lal, the father of the appellants, obtained a simple money decree against Sripat Narain Singh. The respondents obtained a decree for sale on a mortgage against Sripat Narain Singh and Raghupat. The mortgaged property was insufficient to satisfy the mortgage debt, and an application was made under section 90 of a decree passed for the balance of the debt which remained unpaid. This decree under section 90 was passed against Sripat personally and also as representative of Raghupat who was then dead. Subsequently the appellants realized the sum of Rs. 1,100 by sale of property which had been attached in execution of their decree as belonging to Sripat alone, and only Sripat's interest was sold. It was out of this sum so realized that ratable contribution is sought by the plaintiffs here. The question then which arises is as to whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to a ratable share of this money, their judgment-debtors being Sripat and Raghupat, whilst the appellant's judgment-debtor was Sripat alone. The question came before a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, consisting of the Chief Justice and five of the learned Puisne Judges, and was carefully considered [Ganesh Das Bagria v. Shiva Lakshman Bhagat, [1903] I.L.R., 30 Cal., 583].

2. We have read the judgments of the learned Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Banerji and we entirely concur in the view expressed by them and by the other concurring Judges. In that case a party obtained a decree against three judgment-debtors whilst smother person obtained a decree against two only of these judgment-debtors.

3. It was held that the person who held decree against two judgment-debtors only was entitled under the provisions of section 295 to have a proportionate distribution of the money realized by the sale of property of three judgment-debtors so far as the money was realized from his own judgment-debtors. This being our view this appeal fails. It is dismissed with costs.