( 1 ) THIS second appeal comes before us on a reference by out learned brother, Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. , in view of the question of general importance involved. The facts relevant for determination of the question in controversy are as follows:-- The second appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, in AS No. 54/1961 on his file, affirming the decision of the District Munsif, Kurnool, in O. S. No. 34 of 1960. Thai suit was filed by two persons. Vale Pedda Mounamma and Yasamuguru Lingamma for recovery of Rupees 1,500 due on the foot of a simple mortgage. Ex. A-1, dated 23-1-1950 executed by defendants 4 and 5 in their favour for Rs. 4,000 mortgaging items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule They prayed for a decree for sale of items 1 and 3 and right to proceed against Rs. 1,232 14-0, the balance of sale-proceeds of item 2 (house in Kurnool Municipality), which was sold in execution of a prior mortgage decree in O. S. No 91 of 1954 on the file of that Court Items I and 3 of the plaint schedule belonged to the 4th defendant, Karnan Chidambara Rao, while item 2 belonged to his wife, the 5th defendant, K. Adi Laxamma Defendants 4 and