Judgment :- 1. 2nd defendant is the appellant. The suit was to recover Rs. 262-12-7 by way of contribution by sale of 3 out of 4 shares of the Kanom right belonging to defendants 1 and 2 and one deceased Kunhimachumma in plaint schedule property. Plaintiff owned one fourth share of the Kanom right in the property, and the rest belonged entirely to defendants 1 and 2 after the death of Kunhimachumma. 2. The Jenmi transferred his right to recover arrears of michavaram to a stranger and he filed a suit in O. S.255 of 1945 for the same and obtained a decree. Plaintiff who was the 6th defendant in 0. S.2551945 paid off the arrears and the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff to recover the amount paid by him in excess of his share of the joint liability under the decree. 3. The main contention of the 2nd defendant who alone contested the suit was that the suit was barred by limitation. On that plea the trial Court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation and decreed the suit. It is against this decree that the present appeal has been filed. 4. Plaintiff in O. S.2551945 being an assignee from the jenmi had no charge on the property for arrears of michavaram, though the jenmi himself had a charge for the amount. See Krishnan v. Moosa (AIR. 1944 Mad. 557). 5. It appears that in 1946, Rs. 1818 6 was paid by the plaintiff towards the decree amount in O. S.255/1945, and subsequently he made further payments on 10 21954 and 16 2 54. The present suit was instituted on 1511957 to recover the amount paid by him in excess of his share of the joint liability under the decree in O. S.255/1945. It was contended that Art.99 of the Indian Limitation Act was applicable and that right of the plaintiff to recover the excess share paid in 1946 was barred long before the date of the suit and therefore it was not recoverable. 6. I think that that contention is entitled to succeed. In Kunju Naina v. Eapen Chacko 1954 KLT. It was contended that Art.99 of the Indian Limitation Act was applicable and that right of the plaintiff to recover the excess share paid in 1946 was barred long before the date of the suit and therefore it was not recoverable. 6. I think that that contention is entitled to succeed. In Kunju Naina v. Eapen Chacko 1954 KLT. 655) it was held that a person who paid an amount in excess of his share of the liability under a joint decree was entitled to recover the excess amount paid by him within three years of the date of the payment. In Rajah of Vizianagram v. Rajah Setrucherla Somasekhararaz (ILR. 26 Mad. 686 D. B.) Bhashyam Ayyangar has made the following observations: "Under the general law the party seeking contribution has a cause of action to enforce contribution, at any rate as a personal obligation, as soon as he has made any payment in excess of his share and he need not wait till he makes the whole payment, if he means or is able to do so (Davies v. Humphreys 6 M. & W. 153). In fact he may be unable to pay the whole amount of revenue and only a portion thereof in excess of his share may have been paid by or collected from him. It certainly cannot be contended that he will have no right to claim contribution in respect of such excess whether it falls short of making up the entire sum by an insignificant amount or by a considerable amount. Under the general law, therefore each time that an amount is paid by or levied from him in excess of his share he has a right of suit for contribution in respect of such payment and when he brings the suit after making several such payments he really unites several causes of action in one and the same suit under S.45, Civil Procedure Code, and the law of limitation under Art.99 will apply separately to each of such causes of action from the date of the respective payments and the claim for contribution in respect of such payments as were made more than three years before date of suit would be barred by limitation." In this view, the contention that the plaintiff's cause of action arose only when the whole decree amount in O. S.255/1945 was paid by him cannot be accepted. I hold that the suit was barred as regards the excess payment made in 1945, as that payment was made more than three years before the date of suit and that it was not barred as regards the subsequent payments made on 10 21954 and 16 21954. It is agreed between the parties that that amount will come to Rs. 57 8 0. 7. In the result, the decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 57 8 0 with interest at 4% from the date of suit up to the date of the decree and thereafter at the same rate till the date of realisation. The parties will pay and receive costs in proportion to their success and failure here and in the Courts below.