JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff appeals against a judgment of the Judge of Hughly, holding that he is not entitled to contribution from the Defendants 4, 5 and 6. The Plaintiff purchased a putni taluk in execution of a rent-decree, The Defendants 1, 2 and 3 obtained a decree against the Defendants 4, 5, and 6 for rent due from a period anterior to that of the rent decree in execution of which the tenure was sold, and put the taluk up to sale. The Plaintiff paid the decretal amount and then instituted this suit for contribution. The lower Appellate Court has held on the authority of the case of Maharani Dasya v. Harendra Lal Rai 1 C.W.N. 458 (1896) that the Plaintiff is not entitled to contribution. 2. The Plaintiff appeals. On his behalf it is argued (1) that the Plaintiff is entitled to contribution and (2) that the lower Appellate Court was not justified on the appeal of Defendant 5 only in dismissing the Plaintiff's entire suit. 3. The learned pleader for the Appellant does not dispute the correctness of the decision in Maharani Dasya v. Harendra Lal Rai 1 C.W.N. 458 (1896) but urges that it does not apply to putni taluks, and that in consequence of the provisions of sec. 195 (e) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and of sec. 17 of Regulation VIII of 1819, the charge prescribed by sec. 65 of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not attach to putni taluks. He points out that sec. 195 (e) prevents any provision of the Bengal Tenancy Act affecting any enactment relating to putni tenures and argues that if sec. 65 making the rent a first charge on a tenure be held applicable to a putni taluk, this would be contrary to the provisions of sec. 17 (3) of the Putni Regulation, which provide, that balances antecedent to the current year or the year immediately preceding are mere personal debts of the individual talukdar and must be recovered in the same way as other debts by a regular suit. We are however of opinion that, as laid down in Durga Prosad Bundopadhya v. Brindabun Roy ILR 19 Cal. 504 (1892), the provisions of the Tenancy Act, so far as they do not interfere with the putni law in respect of putni taluks, do apply to them. There is no conflict between sec. We are however of opinion that, as laid down in Durga Prosad Bundopadhya v. Brindabun Roy ILR 19 Cal. 504 (1892), the provisions of the Tenancy Act, so far as they do not interfere with the putni law in respect of putni taluks, do apply to them. There is no conflict between sec. 65 of the Tenancy Act and sec. 17 (3) of the Putni Regulation. Antecedent balances may be mere personal debts, which cannot be summarily recovered under the procedure prescribed by the Putni Regulation, but they may be also a charge on the taluk and the taluk may be sold subject to them. So that when the Plaintiff paid off the decree obtained by the Defendants 1, 2, and 3 against the Defendants 4, 5 and 6, he paid off a debt attaching to the taluk he had purchased and hence under the ruling in the case of Maharani Dasya v. Harendra Lal Rai 1 C.W.N. 458 (1896) he cannot recover any portion of the amount by means of a contribution suit. The learned pleader for the Appellant further cites certain observations to be found at p. 108 of the report of the case of Sourendra Mohan Tagore v. Sarno Mayi ILR 26 Cal. 103 (1899) in which it is said that sec. 65 has been held not to limit the personal liability of putnidar for rent. It appears that an attempt was made in that case to restrict the right of the landlord to a sale of the tenure and to stop his proceeding in the first instance at least against the putnidar. The attempt failed. But the Judges in this case did not hold that the landlord could only proceed against the putnidar and could not proceed in the first instance against the taluk, if he chose. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no difference between putni taluks and other tenure in respect of the applicability of sec. 65 to them, and hence the Plaintiff in this case has no more right to contribution against the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 than he would have had, if the tenure had not been a putni taluk. 4. 65 to them, and hence the Plaintiff in this case has no more right to contribution against the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 than he would have had, if the tenure had not been a putni taluk. 4. With regard to the second plea taken by the learned pleader for the Appellant, we would observe that though the Defendant No. 5 only appealed to the lower Appellate Court and that Defendants 4 and 6 preferred no appeal to it, yet when the Judge found that the Plaintiff was not legally entitled to any contribution, he had authority under the provisions of sec. 544 to dismiss the Plaintiff's entire suit, and we can see no error in his having done so. 5. We dismiss this appeal with costs. The Defendant 5 will get his full costs. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 will get separate costs, which we direct will be assessed at half the Defendant's costs.