JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Plaintiffs under the following circumstances :--There are two jamas standing in the serishta of the zemindar, one in the name of the Plaintiffs' father Gopi Nath Mundle, and the other in the name of Ram Chunder Mundle, a deceased brother of the Plain tiffs. It appears that upon the death of Ram Chunder Mundle his widow Bidhumookhi sold a one-third share in certain lands, which she claimed as having come her. from her husband, to the Defendants in the present action. The Defendants brought a suit for the establishment of their right under the sale to them by Bidhumookhi, and the matter remained under litigation for some time. The right of the Defendants to the possession of the lands as assignees of Bidhumookhi was declared, and they obtained possession of the same under their decree. The Plaintiffs allege that from the year 1298 to 1303 they paid rent to her landlord in respect of the lands regarding which the Defendants had obtained a decree, and they claim in this suit to recover from them the amount so paid for and on their behalf to the laud lord. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have no cause of action. They also contend that the payment was a voluntary one, and that therefore the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the money. They raised various other objections which are not material for the determination of this case. But so far as we can see, there was no question raised that inasmuch as the Plaintiffs were tortfeasors they were not entitled to maintain this suit. 2. Several issues were raised in the first point, and the Munsif found that the Plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the action, that the suit was not barred by res judicata, and in the result he came to this conclusion :--"Upon the evidence adduced, and regard being had to all the circumstances of the case, Plaintiffs will get a decree for Rs. 42, annas 9, pies 6, with interest at 12 per cent. Each of the Defendants will pay half of this sum." 3. 42, annas 9, pies 6, with interest at 12 per cent. Each of the Defendants will pay half of this sum." 3. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit, simply on the ground that inasmuch as they had kept the Defendants out of possession they must be assumed to be wrong-doers, and as wrong-doers to have no right to bring a suit for contribution, and in support of this view he relies upon the case of Tiluck Chand Baboo v. Soudaminee Dassee 3 C. L. R. 456 (1878) in which Garth, C. J., and Tottenham, J., appear to have held, upon the authority of some English cases, that when a person has wrongfully withheld possession from the true owner, and has made certain payments on behalf of that owner during such wrongful possession, he is not entitled to recover the money so paid. The facts of that case were very peculiar, and we are not prepared to say that the principle enunciated there is applicable to all cases of this character, In fact in the case of Dakshina Mohun Roy Chowdhry v. Saroda Mohun Roy Chowdhry L. R. 20 I. A. 160 (1893) their Lordships of the Judicial Committee have expressed great doubt upon the general correctness of the principle contended for in the present case upon the authority of the case of Tiluck Chand Baboo v. Soudaminee Dassee 3 C. L. R. 456 (1878). Their Lordships say as follows :--"Even if the rule stated by the learned Judges admitted of no exception, a proposition which it would be difficult to maintain having regard to the recent case of Peruvian Guano Company v. Dreyfus Brothers L. R. (1892) A. C. 166 in the House of Lords, it seems to be a somewhat strong thing to hold that the Appellant, when he paid the Government revenue, was in wrongful possession of the estate. He was in rightful possession at the time. He was in possession under the authority of the highest Court in India. He was in rightful possession at the time. He was in possession under the authority of the highest Court in India. Not only was he in rightful possession and acting in good faith, but the Respondents were acting wrongfully in trying to deprive him of the fruits of his decree otherwise than by due process of law." The learned pleader for the Respondents on the basis of the latter remarks contends that the case before their Lordships is to be distinguished from the present case, because there the Appellants were holding possession under a decree of Court. But it is quite clear that in this case the Plaintiffs were in fact in possession of the property which stood in the name of their father Gopi Nath Mundle and in the name of their brother Ram Chander Mundle. The Defendants had acquired an interest under the conveyance executed in their favour by the widow of the deceased brother, and they were trying to get hold of the property by virtue of that conveyance. The Plaintiffs so far as can be gathered from the materials upon the record, were disputing the right of the Defendants (the Plaintiffs in that case) to obtain possession of the property under their assignment from Bidhumookhi; and it can hardly be said that they were in the position of tortfeasors within the meaning of the expression as used by the learned Chief Justice in the case of Tiluck Chand Baboo v. Soudaminee Dassee 3 C. L. R. 456 (1878). Had the rightful owner been dispossessed by a tortuous act of the Plaintiffs, and had the Plaintiffs wrongfully and dishonestly kept the rightful owner out of possession, it might be contended that it would be inequitable to allow the to bring a suit for contribution. It is unnecessary for us, however, to enter upon a discussion of the relative rights of the parties in such a case as that. 4. In the present case, we are of opinion, that the view taken by the Munsif upon the facts of the case was correct, and that the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge is untenable. 5. We set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and send back the case to that Court to try the second point set out in its judgment. The Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs in this Court.