Judgment Mahabir Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is by defendant 1 who is aggrieved by the decree passed against him for Rs. 6,760 besides interest by way of re-imbursement of the amount paid by the plaintiffs which, according to them was payable by the defendant. 2. The facts are these. The plaintiffs and defendant 1 are successors-in-interest of one Rai Pashupati Natb Bose, since deceased, who had acquired permanent mukarari rights in villages mentioned in Schedules A and B of the plaint. The total mukarari rent payable for the tenure is Rs. 15,512-13-11 per year to the superior landlord Out of this amount, Rs. 12,462-12-0 is paid to the landlord and the balance is paid as revenue and cess to the Government, Late Rai Pashupati Nath was possessed of considerable estate comprising house and other properties in Calcutta, and zamindary and mokarari proper-ties in Bihar. The tenure, the rent of which is in question, is a part of that estate. In the year 1931 a suit for partition of the estate between the plaintiffs and the defendant was instituted on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court. The suit was referred to arbitration of one R.C. Deb, solicitor who happened to be a relation of the parties. During the pendency of the suit and the proceedings before the arbitrator, a receiver was appointed who held possession of the properties under partition. The arbitrator made three interim awards: (i) dated 23rd February 1932; (2) dated 30th August 1933, dividing house and other properties in Calcutta; and (3) dated 8th April 1936, dividing the zamindary and mokarari properties in Bihar. By the-preliminary decree passed by the Calcultta High Court, the plaintiffs were held entitled to two-thirds and the defendant to one-third of the estate of Rai Pashupati Nath. The arbitrator was required to make the allotments accordingly. It appears that for purposes of partition, properties were valued by agreement between the parties which valuation was on the basis of gross income of the properties in question as mentioned in a document dated 26th March 1934, marked as EX. 1 before a Commissioner. This is an agreement between the parties regarding partition scheme and contains a statement of valuation of all the mauzas forming the estate of late Rai Paahupati Nath in the district of Gaya. 1 before a Commissioner. This is an agreement between the parties regarding partition scheme and contains a statement of valuation of all the mauzas forming the estate of late Rai Paahupati Nath in the district of Gaya. Exhibit 1 mentions separately the villages forming the zamindary and mukarrari properties allotted to the plaintiffs and the defendants. Valuation of each village is noted against it. There is nothing in Ex. 1 to indicate as to how the outgoings in respect of these properties were to be made. It appears that after the allotments were made by the arbitrator, the receiver, who was in possession of the estate, had three separate accounts opened. In one of them he dealt with the income from the properties alloted to the plaintiffs, in the other with the the income allotted to the defendant, and in the third one with the funds collected as arrears of the period before the allotment by way of joint fund belonging to the parties. Out of this third account, he used to discharge the liabilities of the estate, and if this joint fund fell short of the requirements, he used to draw in proportion of two-thirds and one-third from the separate accounts kept for the properties allotted to the plaintiffs and the defendants. There is no difference between the parties in regard to the facts stated up to this stage. 3. On 2nd May 1988, the receiver was discharged and the parties got possession of the properties allotted to them. 4. The plaintiffs allege that at the time of partition, although the liability tot payment of the mukarrari rent was not specifically distributed between the parties, it was understood that the plaintiffs and the defendants would be responsible for the payment of the rent due to the proprietors in proportion of the assets of mukarrari tenure held by them in severalty. 5. It appears that the total gross income of the mukarrari properties as fixed by the arbitrator by agreement between the parties is Rs. 35,211. Similarly, the total gross income of the zamindary property is RS. 1,56,648. Out of the gross income of mukarrari properties, as stated above the plaintiffs were allotted, to the amount of Rs. 12,327, and out of gross income of zamindary properties to the amount of Rs. 1,16,679 making a total of Rs. 35,211. Similarly, the total gross income of the zamindary property is RS. 1,56,648. Out of the gross income of mukarrari properties, as stated above the plaintiffs were allotted, to the amount of Rs. 12,327, and out of gross income of zamindary properties to the amount of Rs. 1,16,679 making a total of Rs. 1,27,906, as representing their two-thirds share of the estate of Rai Pashupati Nath in Bihar. The defendant on the other hand, was allotted Rs. 22,881 out of the gross income of mukarrari properties and Rs. 41,069 out of the gross income of zamindary properties making a total of Rs. 63,953 as against his one-third share of the estate. 6. The case of the defendant is, as alleged in para. 9 of the written statement, that the parties agreed to the partition of the joint zamindary and mukarrari properties, according to the valuation of different villages on the footing of the gross annual income in consideration of their mutually agreeing that the entire outgoings in respect of the zamindary and mukarrari properties would after partition be met and discharged by the defendant to the extent of a one-third share and by the plaintiffs to the extent of the remaining two-thirds. According to the defendant, therefore, the annual total liability of the mukarrari property to the extent of Rs. 18,539 and the annual total liability of zamindary property to the extent of Rs. 27,872 had to be added together making a total of Rs. 46,419 and odd to be paid in proportion of two-thirds and one-third shares by the plaintiffs and the defendant; in other words, although, according to1 the allotments made, the defendant was in possession of two thirds of the mukarrari properties, and the plaintiffs were in possession of the mukarrari properties only to the extent of one-third, and the plaintiffs, on the other hand, were in possession of more than two thirds of the zamindary property and the defendant was in possession of less than one-third of that property, the liability for the payment of outstandings in respect of the two kinds of properties were to be in proportion of their shares of two-thirds and one-third of the estate. Two-third liability of the mukarrari property to be paid by the plaintiffs as alleged by the defendant was Bs. 12,359-12-8, and that in respect of the zamindary property payable by him was Rs. Two-third liability of the mukarrari property to be paid by the plaintiffs as alleged by the defendant was Bs. 12,359-12-8, and that in respect of the zamindary property payable by him was Rs. 18,681-9-4, making a total of Rs. 30,941-8-0. The liability of the mukarrari property payable by the defendant was Rs. 6,179-14-4 being the one-third of the total liability of the mukarrari property and BS. 9,290-12-5 in respect of his one-third share of the zamindary property, making a total of Rs. 15,741-10-9, although defendant 1 was allotted less than one-third of the zamindary property, the balance being made up by allotment to him of the mukarrari property in excess of his one-third share. 7. It appears that even after the parties had taken possession of the properties allotted to them, the entire outgoings of the estate were treated as one unit out of which one-third was paid by the defendant and two thirds by the plaintiff irrespective of the possession of the properties in zamindary and mukarrari properties. The system under which the receiver, while in possession of the estate, used to make payments of the outstandings in proportion to the respective shares of the parties was continued. 8. According to the plaintiff, as already stated, the understanding arrived at between the parties was that the plaintiffs and the defendant would be responsible for the payment of the mukarrari liabilities due to the landlords in proportion of the estates of mukarrari tenure held by them in severalty; in other words, the defendant being in possession of the mukarrari properties to the extent of two-thirds were liable to pay BS. 12,359-12.8, As the defendant defaulted in payment of the mukarrari rent in accordance with this understanding, in execution of a decree passed in Rent Suit No. 3 of 1940 against the plaintiffs and the defendant, the entire mukarrari tenure was put up to sale for a sum of Rs. 13,000 odd, and, although the plaintiffs, as alleged by them, were prepared to pay their share of the liability which, according to them, was one-third, the defendant did not come forward to pay his own share of two-thirds and attempted to take possession of the tenure under Sec.171, Bihar Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs, as alleged by them paid to the Court in satisfaction of this joint decree against them and the defendant, under protest to the extent of Rs. The plaintiffs, as alleged by them paid to the Court in satisfaction of this joint decree against them and the defendant, under protest to the extent of Rs. 10,362-4-9 which was in excess of their share of the liability. The amount paid by them in excess was Rs. 5,136-9-9 which, according to them, was legal and justly payable by the defendant. On these allegations, the present suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 6,130-4-9 by way of contribution. 9. The defence to the action is that there was no understanding, as alleged by the plaintiffs, for payment of the outstandings in respect of the mukarrari properties in proportion of the mukarrari tenure held by them in eeveralty. To the contrary, the basis of allotting the zamindary and mukarrari properties on valuation made with reference to gross annual income of these properties was adopted in view of the agreement which was arrived at between the parties, namely, that the entire outgoings in respect of the zamindary and mukarrari properties, would be met by the parties to the extent of one-third by the defendant and to the extent of two-thirds by the plaintiffs treating the entire outstandings of the estate as one unit. In accordance with this agreement, the defendant alleges that he had paid his quota of one third of the rent of the mukarrari tenure, and the amount paid by the plaintiff in satisfaction of the joint decree in Bent Suit No. 3 of 1940 was their own quota of the total mukarrari, rent, justly and legally payable by them and that the amount of Rs. 5136 9-9 was not paid by the plaintiffs in excess of their share of the liability. 10. The most important issue, which fell to be decided, was: "Was there any agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant 1 that the entire outgoings of both the zamindari and mokarrari properties should be discharged by the plaintiSs and defendant 1 in proportion to 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively as alleged in para. 9 of the written statement or waa there any understanding as mentioned in para 4 of the plaint?" 11. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge negatived the agreement pleaded by the defendant as also the understanding relied upon by the plaintiffs. 9 of the written statement or waa there any understanding as mentioned in para 4 of the plaint?" 11. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge negatived the agreement pleaded by the defendant as also the understanding relied upon by the plaintiffs. He held as follows: "Having regard to all the evidence and circumstances discussed above, I hold that there was no agreement or understanding between the plaintiffs and defendant 1 for payment of the entire outgoings including mokarrari rent of the mokarrari properties in proportion to 2/3rd and 1/3rd respectively as stated by defendant 1 in para. 9 of the written statement. I further hold that there was also no specific understanding between the parties as stated by the plaintiffs in para 4." He, however, decreed the plaintiffs suit because he held that in, the absence of any agreement or understanding in this behalf, the plaintiffs under the law and equity were responsible for payment of the mukarrari dues in proportion of the assets of the mukarrari tenure held by them in severalty, and that they had, therefore, paid the amount claimed by them in excess of the amount of the mukarrari rent for which they were liable. 12 It is contended on behalf of the appellanfe by Mr. Lalnarain Sinha that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge erred in not taking into account all the circumstances in the case, and in holding that under the law and equity the plaintiffs were entitled to recover this amount from the defendant. He referred to the evidence of witness No. 2 for the plaintiffs, Kshitish Chandra Bagcbi, who is the agent for the plaintiffs, and who attended the proceedings of the partition before the arbitrator on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr. Lalnarain Sinha submits that on his evidence it is established that the plaintiffs have been paying revenue and cess of the zamindary properties only to the extent of two-thirda although they are in fact in possession of more than two-thirda of the zamindary properties. Even during the period for which the mukarrari rent was realised by execution of the decree in Rent Suit no. 3 of 1940, the plaintiffs had paid only two-thirds of the total revenue and cess payable for the zamindary properties although they were in possession of more than two-thirds of such properties. Even during the period for which the mukarrari rent was realised by execution of the decree in Rent Suit no. 3 of 1940, the plaintiffs had paid only two-thirds of the total revenue and cess payable for the zamindary properties although they were in possession of more than two-thirds of such properties. He submits that irrespective of the fact whether the agreement pleaded by the defendant ia proved or not, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim refund of the amount alleged to have been paid by them in excess of their share of the liability of the mukarrari tenure on the basis of the extent of possession of the assets of the mukarrari properties unless they make a refund of the amount paid by the defendant by way of revenue and cess in respect of the zamindary property in excess of their share of the liabilities calculated on the basis of their possession of the assets of the zamindary property. The plaintiffs having taken advantage of the payments made by the defendant in respect of the zamindary property and having allowed them to make that payment on the footing that the plaintiffs would make payment of the mukarrari rent in accordance with their share of the total liability of the estate considered as one unit, are estopped from alleging and proving that the plaintiffs and the defendant either by reason of any agreement or under the law or equity are responsible for the payments of the mukarrari dues in proportion of the assets of the mukarrari tenure held by them. The contention merits serious consideration. 13. It appears that the defendant has brought a suit in the Calcutta High Court against the plaintiffs claiming a declaration that the plain, tiffs and the defendant are under an obligation to pay and discharge the entire outgoings of the zamindary and mukarrari properties partitioned between the parties under the award of the arbitrator in the proportion of one-third and two-thirds respectively, and, for a decree for Rs. 12,258-9-0. This suit was instituted on loth February 1945, after institution of the suit out of which the appeal arises, on 3rd July 1944. The suit in the Calcutta High Court is still pending. 12,258-9-0. This suit was instituted on loth February 1945, after institution of the suit out of which the appeal arises, on 3rd July 1944. The suit in the Calcutta High Court is still pending. The issue whether there was an agreement of the kind pleaded by the defendant or the understanding relied upon by the plaintiffs in respect of the liabilities regarding outatandings of the estate will have to be decided in that suit. It seems that the present case can be disposed of on a shorter ground of estoppel without deciding finally this issue between the parties. This issue may be left to be decided in the suit pending before the Calcutta High Court in a larger context, when all the materials relevant to the decision of this issue will be before the Court. 14. Reverting to the ground of estoppel urged on behalf of the appellant. It is common ground that the share of the plaintiffs in the whole estate is two-thirds and that of the defendant is one-third as also that the allotments made by the arbitrator proceeded on the basis of an agreed valuation of these properties with reference to their gross income, and, that as a result of this allotment, the plaintiffs are in possession of the zamindari properties in excess of their two-thirds share and the defendant is in possession of the mukarrari properties in excess of his one-third share. It is also common ground that the liabilities in respect of these two kinds of properties--mukarrari and zamindary--used to be paid by the parties in proportion of two-thirds and one third on the basis of the total outstandings being one unit up to the date of the suit. It is clear that it was only in respect of the payment of the decree in Rent Suit no. 3 of 1940 that the dispute in regard to the payment of the mukarrari liabilities on that basis arose between the parties. It is also not denied by the plaintiffs that they have not been paying revenue and cess of the zamindary properties in proportion of the assets of these properties in their possession, that is to say, they have been paying in proportion of two-thirds and one-third of the total liabilities. [After quoting from the deposition of p. w. 2. It is also not denied by the plaintiffs that they have not been paying revenue and cess of the zamindary properties in proportion of the assets of these properties in their possession, that is to say, they have been paying in proportion of two-thirds and one-third of the total liabilities. [After quoting from the deposition of p. w. 2. Kshitish, His Lordship proceeded: ] The conclusion seems irresistible that, in the circumstances, the plaintiffs by, their conduct of allowing the defendant to pay revenue and cess in respect of zamindary properties in excess of the amount of such demands attributable to the assets of such properties in his possession and having thus let the defendant to act to his disadvantage are estopped from claiming a refund of the amount paid by them by way of mukarrari rent in excess of the amount attributable to the assets of the mukarrari property in their possession. The plaintiffs are, therefore, not entitled to recover in any event the amount claimed by them in the suit. 15. The situation would have been entirely different if the plaintiffs had intimated to the defendant that he was not to pay the liabilities in respect of the zamindary property in excess of the amount attributable to the assets in his possession, and that they would not pay in respect of the outstandings of the mukarrati property any amount in excess of that attributable to the assets in their possession. The defendant in that event could not escape the responsibility of meeting the liability in respect of the mukarrari property proportionate to the assets in his possession unless he proved the agreement pleaded by him in his defence. While, therefore, it may be possible to hold the defendant liable in future for the portion of the outstandings referable to the assets of the mukarrari in his possession, if the agreement pleaded by him and repudiated by the plaintiffs is not established, the plaintiffs, in the circumstances of the present case, cannot claim contribution in respect of the amount paid by them as mukarrari rent and involved in the suit. 16. Mr. B.C. De for the respondents pressed the claim for contribution on the ground of equity. It is no doubt true that the right and duty of contribution is founded on doctrines of equity. 16. Mr. B.C. De for the respondents pressed the claim for contribution on the ground of equity. It is no doubt true that the right and duty of contribution is founded on doctrines of equity. In the present case, however, it is not possible to work out the equities between the parties in respect of the liability for the payment of the outstandings, unless the scheme of partition of the whole estate, based as it was on the most unusual method of valuing the properties to be partitioned on their gross income, is examined. It is likely that on such examination the agreement between the parties to value the properties on the basis of their gross income may be found to include, by necessary implication, the agreement in respect of the outstandings as pleaded by the defendant. On the otter hand, such examination may reveal circumstances completely negativing such an agreement and justifying the understanding pleaded by the plaintiffs or affording grounds for application of the equitable doctrine of the person in possession of a property being liable for payment of its outstandings. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge erred in applying this principle and decreeing the suit for contribution on the basis of the defendant being responsible for the payment of dues of the mokarrari property in proportion of the assets held by him without examining the scheme of partition under which the plaintiffs and the defendant came to hold in severally mukarrari and zamindary properties in variation of their shares of two-thirds and one-third. What is more, he seems to have missed that the plaintiffs not having adhered to this proportion so far as the payments in respect of zamindary properties were concerned, were not entitled to press this principle to their advantage in respect of the outstandings of the mokarrari properties. It is an established principle that one who seeks equity must do equity. It is clear that the plaintiffs in the present case having failed to prove the understanding pleaded by them have no right to claim contribution from the defendant either in law or in equity. 17. In view of these considerations without deciding whether the agreement pleaded by the defendant or the understanding pleaded by the plaintiffs has been established, it is held that the plaintiffs have failed to make good their claim in respect of the amount covered by the suit. 18. 17. In view of these considerations without deciding whether the agreement pleaded by the defendant or the understanding pleaded by the plaintiffs has been established, it is held that the plaintiffs have failed to make good their claim in respect of the amount covered by the suit. 18. The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. The parties must bear their own costs through-out. Das, J. 19 I agree.