JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— We are of opinion that the judgment of the Subordinate Judge on the questions discussed before us was perfectly correct, and that there is no force in this appeal. We also think that the reasons which he had assigned for that judgment are sound and that the appellant here was not entitled to maintain a suit for contribution. He purchased at a court sale property consisting of a house without admittedly any warranty of title. Subsequently it turned out that two parties claimed to be entitled to about two-thirds shares in the house. They brought suits to have their title established and their suits were decreed. From this it would seem that the appellant purchased property the title to two-thirds shares of which was defective. As has been laid down in the judgment in the case of Shanlo Chandra Mukerji v. Nain Sukh, [1901] I.L.R., 23 All., 355 to which one of us was a party, “the purchaser must be taken to buy the property with all risks and all defects in the judgment-debtor's title, except as provided by sections 313 and 315; that in the absence of fraud his only remedy is to recover back his purchase money, where it is found that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property at all, and that he cannot by suit any more than by application obtain a refund in proportion to the extent to which the judgment-debtor had no interest.” 2. The judgment-debtor in this case had admittedly an interest in the house, the subject-matter of the sale, and therefore sections 313 and 315 do not apply. Under the circumstances the rule of caveat emptor seems to apply. The case may be one of hardship, but we are unable to say that it is so because it is quite possible and consistent with all that we know that the house was sold to the appellant at a less price than would have been paid if the title had been known to be good. The fact that the appellant has been deprived of a portion of the property which he purchased does not, in our opinion, entitle him to contribution against the owners of the other portions of the property which were subject to the mortgage under which the property was sold to him. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs on the higher scale.