JUDGMENT : Blair, J. The suit out of which this appeal arises, in so far as it has to be dealt with in this appeal, is simply a suit for contribution, the plaintiff alleging that he being a co-mortgagor with the defendant, paid out of his own pocket that portion of the mortgage money which the defendant was bound to pay. We have had addressed to us an argument at considerable length and a number of cases cited, but it appears to us that our decision is practically concluded by two cases which have been decided in this Court, namely, the cases of Ibn Husain v. Ram Dai, (1889) I.L.R., 12 All, 110, and Bhagwnn Das v. Har Dei, [1904] A.W.N., 3. 2. In both of these cases it was held explicitly that the limitation for such a suit as the present one, is the limitation provided in article 132 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Vakil contended that article 147 applied. The cases which we have mentioned are authorities for the contrary proposition. The position of the plaintiff is not that of a mortgagee, and that which he has obtained is a charge on the property. We think, under these circumstances, the court below was right in applying article 132 of the Indian Limitation Act and dismiss the appeal with costs.