The main legal point established in the judgment is that the redemption amounts for mortgages must be calculated based on the securities and in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 10 of 1940.

JUDGMENT

1. One Atul Chandra Mukherjee, father of defendant 1, borrowed Rs. 500 from one Nirupama Debi on 10th June 1920 by mortgaging the properties in suit. This mortgage would hereafter be called the first mortgage. Thereafter he borrowed two sums of money on the security of the self same properties, namely, Rs. 5000 from the Sens (defendants 3 and 4), and Rs. 1600 from one Benode Behary Mukherjee (predecessor-in-interest of defendants 3 to 9). These two mortgages will hereafter be called the second and the third mortgages. On 17th March 1923, he borrowed a further sum of Rs. 2360 from the plaintiff, Sailendra, on the security of the self-same properties. This is the mortgage which is sought to be enforced in this suit. All these mortgages were simple mortgages. As the suit was instituted after the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 8 of 1933, the plaintiff limited his claim to Rs. 4720 only, being double the principal amount lent by him. In 1923, after the plaintiff's mortgage, the Sens sued to enforce their mortgage. They made the mortgagor, Atul and the mortgagee Benode parties defendants to the suit but omitted to implead the plaintiff, Sailendra, in their suit as they had. at the time no knowledge of the latter's mortgage. They obtained a final decree, in execution of which the mortgaged properties were sold and purchased by Amarendra and Anadi (defendants 10 and 11) in the benami of defendant 2. This sale was held on 12th January 1925. The said (defendants 10 and 11) thereafter paid up the dues of Nirupama who had also obtained a decree in a suit to which the plaintiff Sailendra was not a party. They took possession through Court on 11th February 1927, and are still in possession. The plaintiff filed his suit to enforce his mortgage on 17th September 1935. After giving particulars of his mortgage, he stated in the plaint that his interest had not been affected by the decree obtained by the Sens. He ignored Nirupama's mortgage but admitted his knowledge of the second and the third mortgages, and pleaded that he was not bound to redeem those mortgages, as the claims under them had already been barred by limitation as against him. He, however, made an alternative prayer to the effect that if he was bound in law to redeem those mortgages he may be given an opportunity to redeem them. The only contesting defendants were defendants 10 and 11. They disclosed Nirupama's mortgage and urged that the plaintiff was bound to redeem not only the second and the third mortgages but also Nirupama's mortgage, by paying to them the amounts due on these three mortgages. The learned Subordinate Judge by his decree dated the 30th April 1937, directed the plaintiff to pay to defendants 10 and 11 within a month of his decree the sums of Rupees 1673-6-0 and Rs. 12,375 on account of Nirupama's mortgage and the mortgage of the Sens respectively. On his paying the said sums of money to defendants 10 and 11 the plaintiff was to get a preliminary decree for sale for the total sum of the amounts thus paid to defendants 10 and 11 for redeeming Nirupama's mortgage and the mortgage of the Sens and the sum due to him on his own mortgage which was determined at the figure Rs. 6330-12-0. The learned Subordinate Judge found that Benode's mortgage was not enforceable against the plaintiff at the date of his suit. He accordingly did not allow defendants 10 and 11 to claim the dues on the said mortgage. Defendants 10 and 11 have not appealed for this part of the decree so we need not consider the claims under Benode's mortgage. The learned Subordinate Judge arrived at those figures in the following manner:

(a) Re: Nirupama's mortgage:-     (i) Defendants 10 and 11 paid    her                                  Rs. 1050-0-0   (ii) Interest at 6 per cent. per       annum on the said amount       from the dates of payment       till the period fixed for re-      demption by the plaintiff.         Rs. 623-6-0                                        ---------------