JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal arises out of a suit brought by the present Respondents for contribution against the present Appellants. The case of the Plaintiffs-Respondents was that they and the Appellants were joint thikadars of a certain Tillage, that on the 11th April 1898 their landlords obtained a decree against them and the Defendants for recovery of rent due for the thica for the years 1302 to 1305, and that the Plaintiffs finding their land attached in execution of the decree had to pay the full amount of the decree in 3 installments totaling Rs. 579-4-0 in the months of June to August 1899. They claimed to be entitled to recover from the Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 who held an eight anna share of the thica a proportionate share of the rent which they had paid on their behalf. The Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 in their defence did not deny that a decree had been obtained against them and the Plaintiffs by their landlords and that the Plaintiffs had paid up the full amount of the decree: but they pleaded that on two previous occasions the landlords had obtained decrees for rent due for the thica against them jointly with the Plain-tiffs and that on those two occasions they had paid off the full decretal amount and the Plaintiffs had paid nothing. They alleged that on the 17th December 1895 they had paid Rs. 855 which was the full rental of the thica up to the year 1297 and that on the 19th July 1897 they had paid up the sum of Rs. 577-13-0 which was the balance of the rent due upon the thica for the years 1298 to 1301. The Plaintiffs had not subsequently repaid to them any of the money which they had on these two occasions paid on the Plaintiffs' behalf. The suit in which the decree was obtained and which the Plaintiffs paid off was for the rent for the years 1302 to 1305. 2. The Court of first instance on taking into consideration the plea of the Defendants Nos. The suit in which the decree was obtained and which the Plaintiffs paid off was for the rent for the years 1302 to 1305. 2. The Court of first instance on taking into consideration the plea of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 came to the conclusion that they were entitled to set off against the claim of the Plaintiffs only a proportionate amount of the rent which the Defendants had paid on the 19th July 1897, the reason being that the amount was paid within three years before the date on which the payment was made by the Plaintiffs. So far as the payment made on the 17th December 1895 was concerned, the Munsif held that the Defendants' claim to set off any portion of it against the claim of the Plaintiffs in the present suit was barred by limitation. The Munsif accordingly gave the Plaintiffs a decree for the balance. 3. On appeal the lower Appellate Court has disallowed the amount which the Defendants had been allowed to set off by the Munsif and has given the Plaintiffs a decree for the whole amount of their claim. 4. The Defendants have appealed. The only question before us is whether in a case of this sort any question of limitation really arises. In our opinion no question of limitation arises on the facts. It does not appear to have been denied in the Court of first instance that the Defendants had satisfied the two decrees for rent in 1895 and 1897 and the sums which they then paid included money which the Plaintiffs as co-sharers were bound under the law to pay. It was not alleged or proved that the sums due on behalf of the Plaintiffs had afterwards been repaid to the Defendants by the Plaintiffs. The sums which the Defendants had on previous occasions paid on behalf of the Plaintiffs remained there fore as an outstanding debt due from the Plaintiffs to them. It 1b true that at the time when the Plaintiffs made payment in satisfaction of the decree in 1899 the remedy of the Defendants at law to recover from the Plaintiffs the sums which they had previously paid was barred by limitation. But though the remedy might have been barred the right to the debt was not extinguished, see Mohesh Lal v. Basant Kumari I. L. R. 6 Cal. But though the remedy might have been barred the right to the debt was not extinguished, see Mohesh Lal v. Basant Kumari I. L. R. 6 Cal. 840 (1880) When afterwards the Plaintiffs were in consequence of the decree obtained against them and the Defendants by their landlords and in consequence of the attachment of the property of the Plaintiffs in satisfaction of that decree compelled to pay on their own behalf as well as on behalf of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 the amount due under the decree, the Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were entitled to appropriate the sum which was paid by the Plaintiffs on their behalf as money paid in discharge of the outstanding debt which was due from the Plaintiffs to them. We find that the debt due to the Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 from the Plaintiffs on account of the previous payments was Rs. 358 and that the amount which the Plaintiffs would have been entitled to recover from the Defendants as contribution for the amount paid by them to discharge the arrears of rent in 1899 amounted to Rs. 289. In fact, therefore, the Defendants at the time of payment were entitled to a sum in excess of that which the Plaintiffs paid for them. Under these circumstances we hold that the Plaintiffs have no right to claim contribution from the Defendants in the present suit. In our opinion the view which the lower Appellate Court has taken is not correct, and we therefore set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and decree the appeal with costs. The suit will stand dismissed with costs in all the Courts.