JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— The appeal arises out of a suit for contribution brought by the plaintiffs-appellants against the respondents, It appears that Musammat Fahiman Bibi, respondent, mortgaged certain property to one Raghunandan in 1886, A part of the property was purchased by the plaintiffs-appellants in execution of a simple money decree held by a creditor of Fahiman against her. Their purchase was admittedly a purchase of the equity of redemption which existed in Fahiman. The respondents other than Fahiman are also purchasers of other parts of the mortgaged property. The mortgagee brought a suit for sale against the mortgagor and transferees and obtained a decree in 1895. He also obtained an order absolute and proceeded to execute the decree by sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiffs, thereupon, discharged the whole amount of the mortgage on 20th of November, 1897. Having done so, they brought the present suit to recover from the defendants the proportionate amount of the mortgage-debt for which the property in the hands of the defendants was liable. The Court of the first instance granted them a decree, but the lower appellate Court dismissed the claim as against the respondents other than Fahiman, holding that having regard to the provisions of section 56 of Act IV of 1882, the plaintiffs remedy was to proceed against Fahiman, In this view the lower appellate Court is in our judgment in error. The whole of the property mortgaged by Fahiman was liable for the mortgage-debt, and consequently every part of it was liable for the proportionate amount of the debt according to the proportionate value of the property. This is the principle laid down in section 82 of Act IV of 1882. Consequently the portion of the property purchased by the respondents, who are represented here by Mr. Abdul Raoof,” was liable for a portion of the mortgage-debt in proportion to the value of that property. In paying off the whole of the debt, the plaintiffs had paid an amount for which the respondents and their share of the property were liable. 2. Consequently the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the respondents the amounts paid for them. Section 56 is a section which enables a purchaser of a portion of the property subject to a charge to have this charge satisfied out of the other portion of the properly in the absence of a contract to the contrary. 2. Consequently the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the respondents the amounts paid for them. Section 56 is a section which enables a purchaser of a portion of the property subject to a charge to have this charge satisfied out of the other portion of the properly in the absence of a contract to the contrary. This is a remedy which exists between a vendor and the, purchaser in the absence of a contract to the contrary. In the first place, the section is an enabling section. In the next place, the respondents only purchased the equity of redemption, and consequently they could not avail themselves of section 56. Beside, as between the plaintiffs and the respondents, section 56 has no application. The Court below ought to have determined as between the plaintiffs and the respondents what was the proportionate liability of each of them for the mortgage-debt and ought to have awarded to the plaintiffs such amount as the plaintiffs have paid in excess of their share of liability for the respondents. Each party being liable in proportion to the value of the property held by him; the ground upon which the Court below has dismissed the suit is wholly untenable, and as other questions in this case have not been determined, we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and remand the case to that Court under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure for trial upon the merits. The appellants will have their costs of this appeal including fees on the higher scale. Other costs will follow the event.