JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application praying that the decree of the Court of Small Causes at Basti be set aside on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is urged that the suit was one for contribution and not for damages as held by the Court below. I think that the view taken by that Court is right. The facts are these: The predecessors-in-title of the applicants, who were defendants in the Court below, sold to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs opposite party, certain property and in the sale deed they specified certain incumbrances on the property and stated that there were no other incumbrances. The sale deed contained an indemnity clause in the event of other incumbrances being discovered. As a matter of fact the property sold and some other property of the vendor were subject to a mortgage which the mortgagee sought to enforce by suit. He obtained a decree. In order to avoid a sale of the property purchased by the plaintiffs they discharged the decree and they brought the suit out of which this application arises to be reimbursed the amount which they had to pay in respect of the property purchased by them. This was clearly not a suit for contribution. 2. If they paid the amount for which the other property not sold to them was rateably liable in excess of the amount for which the property purchased by them was liable they could have sued for contribution; and if they had brought such a suit that would have been a suit which could not be maintained in a Court of Small Causes; bub the present suit was not of that description. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendants the amount which they had to pay in respect of the property purchased by them in consequence of the defendants having falsely represented the property to be free from the incumbrance which the plaintiffs had to discharge. It was clearly a suit for compensation and not one for contribution and was therefore cognizable in a Court of Small Causes. I dismiss the application with costs.