Judgment

BHARGAVA, J.: This appeal arises out of Original Suit No. 19 of 1943 instituted in the Court of the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, by four plaintiffs. The first two plaintiffs were Elias Saleh Mohamed Sait (respondent No. 1) and Mohamed Saleh Mohamed Sait (respondent No. 2), sons of Saleh Mohamed Sait who died in or about the year 1917, leaving behind his widow, Rahamatbai, three minor sons and three daughters. The eldest of the minor sons was Ahmed Saleh Mohamed Sait, who also died before the institution of the suit, the other two being respondents 1 and 2. At the time when inheritance opened on the death of Saleh Mohamed Sait, admittedly the family was governed by Hindu Law in the matter of succession and inheritance, so that the daughters did not acquire any right in the property left by their father. The principal relief claimed in the suit was for accounts under section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act, No. 4 of 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the T. P. Act") in respect of a mortgage deed dated 14th July, 1933 (Ext. C) executed by Ahmed Saleh Mohamed Sait, the two respondents in this appeal, and their mother Rahmatbai, for a sum of Rs. 50,000 mortgaging premises No. 6 South Parade, Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, in favour of Khanmull who was defendant in the suit and who is now represented by the appellants as his legal representatives. Before the institution of the suit, the mortgagors rights in the mortgaged property had been transferred to Khan Saheb Abdul Gani Saheb and Khan Saheb Abdul Shakoor Saheb who also joined in the suit as plaintiffs 3 and 4. The eldest son Ahmed Saleh Mohamed Sait became a major in or about the year 1927 and, till that time, Rahamatbai was managing the, property. Until the year 1930, it appears that no debts were taken by the members of this family. The first loan that was taken was on the basis of a simple mortgage deed dated 20th May 1930 executed by the eldest son Ahmed Saleh Mohamed Sait as well as by Rahamatbai as guardian of respondents 1 and 2 who were minors at that time. Thereafter, a number of loans were taken details of which need not be mentioned. One of these loans was on the basis of a usufructuary mortgage executed in favour of one J. Krishnalal; but both the Courts below have held that Krishnalal was a benamidar for the defendant Khanmull, so that the various loans taken were all from Khanmull. On 14th July, 1933, the three brothers and their mother executed a mortgage deed Ext. C for a sum of Rs. 50,000 working out the consideration on the basis of the amounts due under earlier loans, and adding to it the amount of cash paid at the time of execution of this mortgage deed. Ahmed Saleh Mohamed Sait died in the year 1939 and his mother Rahamatbai also died in the same year. On 21st January, 1943, the two respondents and their sisters deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 under section 83 of the T. P. Act to discharge the debt under the mortgage deed Ext. C dated 14th July, 1933, but the defendant did not accept that money, with the result that the petition under Section 83 of the T. P. Act failed. It was on 22nd January, 1943 that the two respondents sold the mortgaged property to plaintiffs 3 and 4 for a sum of Rs. 75,000. Thereafter, plaintiff No. 3 filed Original Petition No. 11 of 1943 in the Court of the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, under Section 83 of the T.P. Act and deposited a sum of Rs. 66,463-15-6 to be paid over to the mortgagee. Khanmull, the mortgagee accepted the amount deposited as correct, delivered possession of the mortgaged property and the necessary documents, and obtained payment of the amount. A joint memo, dated 15th March, 1943 was filed evidencing this transaction and the Court passed an order on the same date recording it. Thereafter, on 3rd November, 1943, the four plaintiffs, mentioned above, instituted the Original Suit No. l9 of 1943 and, as mentioned earlier, the main prayer was that the defendant be directed t