JUDGMENT : BURKITT, J.:— An interesting question upon the meaning of section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act is raised by the appeal. The facts are few and simple. They are as follows:—On the 20th of July, 1892, Mardan Singh and Ranjit Singh mortgaged two villages, called Domanpur and Puranpur, byway of conditional sale in favour of Chet Singh. On the 20th of September, 1899, the plaintiff, Sheo Dayal Singh, who had obtained a simple money decree against the mortgagors, in execution of that decree caused a two-thirds share of Puranpur to be sold and himself purchased that share. This purchase was of course subject to the mortgage of the 20th of July, 1892. Subsequently, the mortgagee brought a suit for foreclosure, and on the 6th of June, 1901, a decree nisi was passed. In order to protect the property, the plaintiff, on the 30th of September, 1901, deposited in court a sum of Rs. 8,392-6-6 and thereby satisfied the decree and discharged the mortgage-debt in full. He thereupon instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for contribution. 2. The only question before the Court is the question of the time at which the two villages comprised in the mortgage are to be valued for the purpose of contribution, it appears that at the date of the mortgage the revenue of Domanpur was Rs. 1,353 odd and the gross rental was only Rs. 1,803. Consequently, the profits of that village only amounted at, that time to Rs. 450. 3. The revenue, however, was afterwards reduced to Rs. 870, but the rental at the same time appears to have fallen to Rs. 1,560, leaving a profit of about Rs. 790. The plaintiff claimed contribution from Domanpur according to the values of the property at the time when he purchased a share of one village, and to his contention in this respect the learned Subordinate Judge has acceded. 4. The appellants have filed the present appeal on the ground that the valuation of the two villages ought to be taken as that at the date of the mortgage for the purposes of contribution under section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. The appellants have filed the present appeal on the ground that the valuation of the two villages ought to be taken as that at the date of the mortgage for the purposes of contribution under section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act. This section provides that where several properties whether of one or several owners, are mortgaged to secure one debt, such properties are in the absence of a contract to the contrary liable to contribute rateably to the debt secured by the mortgage after deducting from the value of each property the amount of any other incumbrance to which it is subject at the date of the mortgage. 5. Now ordinarily the time at which the value is taken would not be of much importance because the fluctuation in the value of several properties would generally be about equal. In this case, however, it is apparent, having regard to the fact that the Government revenue in this case of Domanpur was largely reduced after the date of the mortgage that the question becomes a material one. It appears to us that the” time at which the valuation ought to be made for the purposes of contribution is the date of the mortgage and for these reasons. The section itself seems to contemplate that properties are to be liable to contribute rateably according to their values at the date of the mortgage and not at a future date because the present tense is used throughout. The words of the section are that “the properties are liable” not “shall be liable at any future time;” and it also provides that in calculating the value of the properties the amount of any other incumbrance to which any property may be subject at the date of the mortgage, is to be deducted from the value of such property. If any other date than the date of the mortgage was to be taken at the time at which the properties were to be valued for the purpose of this section, it would follow that, a party who being the owner of a portion of the mortgaged property had expended money and labour in improving his property, would thereby render himself liable to pay a larger contribution by reason of the fact that he had increased the value of his property. This obviously would be inequitable. This obviously would be inequitable. It has been suggested that other dates might be selected, such as the time of foreclosure at which to estimate the respective values, but it seems to us that the date which the legislature had in contemplation when section 82 was enacted is the date of the execution of the mortgage which is the date upon which the equity to contribution arises, The parties at that time, we think, became liable to contribute enter se rateably in accordance with the respective values of the property. We can find no argument in favour of the view that the date of the plaintiff's purchase was the proper time at which the valuation’ should be made. The plaintiff when he purchased only stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor in respect of the property so purchased. If different parts of mortgaged property be sold at different dates, it would clearly not be proper to chose the date of any one sale in preference to the date of any other sale as the proper time for the making of the valuation. We therefore think that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error in fixing the date of the plaintiff's purchase as the time at which the properties should be valued for the purpose of contribution. 6. We must therefore allow the appeal but before we can finally dispose of this case we must remand to the learned Subordinate Judge issues for determination under the provisions of section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely,” What were the respective values of Domanpur and Puranpur, at the date of the execution of the mortgage of the 20th of July, 1892, and having regard to these valuations what is the amount of contribution to which the defendants-appellants are liable to pay in respect of the village of Domanpur and one-third of Puranpur.” The court will admit any proper evidence which may be tendered for the determination of these issues. On return of the finding 10 days will be allowed for objections.