A mortgagee who commits a breach of contract and entices the sale of the property must hold the equity of redemption in trust for the mortgagors and cannot take advantage of their own wrong.

1. The 6th additional plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was for redemption. It was dismissed by both the lower courts. Hence the appeal.

2. The plaint property is 32 cents of land within the limits of the Trivandrum corporation. It belonged to the 1st plaintiff. He and his father Bhagavathi Asari mortgaged it to defendants 1 to 6 for 10500 fs. on 13-9-1090 under Ext. B. The term of the mortgage was for 25 years. 79 fs. were paid in cash to the mortgagors and the rest of the consideration was recited to be paid to third parties, and the mortgagors. There was a recital to pay pw. 3, Parameswaran Pillai Raman Pillai 798 fs. and another recital to pay 1568fs. to one Narayana Pillai. The amount due to Narayana Pillai was a charge on the plaint property. 2100 fs. were reserved with the mortgagees to be paid on the registered receipt of the mortgagors on a later date. The other recitals are not material for this case. Raman Pillai instituted a suit in O. S.63/1091 and obtained a decree and sold the plaint property in execution and got delivery of possession under Ext. I (The fact of actual delivery is not admitted by the plaintiffs). Thereafter the property was sold by Raman Pillai to defendants 1 to 6 on 20 11096. Defendants 1 to 6 had instituted a suit O. S.739/1094 and applied for an injunction to restrain Raman Pillai from taking delivery of possession of the property through court. Ext. C is the plaint there. It was after the institution of that suit that Raman Pillai sold the property to defendants 1 to 6 under Ext. E. From that sale deed it is clear that defendants 1 to 6 had not till then paid off the debt recited to be paid under Ext. B, to Narayana Pillai.

3. The suit was resisted on the ground that the defendants 1 to 6 had become the owners of the property by the purchase under Ext. E and that the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the mortgage.

4. The main question for consideration therefore is whether the mortgage under Ext. B was extinguished on account of the purchase by Raman Pillai of the property in execution of the decree in O. S.631091 and its sale under Ext. E. That will depend upon the question whether there was any obligation on the part of the mortgagees to discharge the debt of Raman Pillai. The defendants' case was that there was no amount reserved with them as mortgagees to pay off the debt due to Raman Pillai as the consideration for the mortgage was 10500 fs. whereas the recitals to be paid by defendants 1 to 6 amounted to 11500 fs. It was contended that while the consideration for Ext. B was 10500 fs. the debts recited to be paid together with the payment already made and to be made to the mortgagors amounted to 11500 fs. and therefore, it was not possible for defendants 1 to 6 to pay off the amount recited to be paid to Raman Pillai. Both the courts below relying on this circumstance have come to the conclusion that the mortgagees were not trustees of the equity of redemption for the mortgagors. It is said that after paying off the other debts and the amount reserved to be paid to the mortgagors there was not any amount for paying the debt of Raman Pillai. But would that circumstance exonerate the defendants 1 to 6 from their contractual liability to pay the amount? Under Ext. B they had undertaken to pay off the amount due to Raman Pillai. If they had not enough money to pay Raman Pillai, their obvious duty was to deduct the amount due to Raman Pillai from the amount payable to the mortgagors and pay Raman Pillai and avert the sale. The fact that the mortgagors were parties to the suit instituted by Raman Pillai is immaterial for deciding the question of the liability of the mortgagees in this case. There was an unconditional contract in Ext. B that the mortgagees would discharge the debt due to Raman Pillai. If for any reason they could not discharge the debt it was incumbent on them to have notified that fact to the martgagors so that they might pay off the debt due to Raman Pillai. T