Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a revision by the plaintiffs whose suit dismissed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Jodhpur.

2. The plaintiffs suit was briefly this:

Laxminarain defendant had mortgaged his house usufructuary for Rs 700/- to the plaintiffs on the 27th of June, 1953. On the same day, the plaintiffs mortgagees in their turn gave a lease of the house to the defendant mortgagor at Rs. 3/8/- per month, and put the lessee in possession. As the rent was not paid, the plaintiffs filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in the court of Joint Kotwal No. 2, Jodhpur. That suit was fought up to the High Court of the former State of Marwar, and the High Court gave a decree for arrears of rent, but decided that the lessee could not be ejected and the prayer for ejectment was not allowed. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs in February, 1953, claiming arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 126/- for 3 years preceding the date of suit. The suit resisted by the defendant, who among other pleas raised the objection that the suit was barred under O. II, r. 2, C. P. G. A. preliminary issue appears to have been framed by the Judge, Small Cause Court on this point, and he held that the suit was barred by O. II, r. 5, and dismissed it. The present revision is by the plaintiffs against this dismissal.

3. The case of the defendant that the suit was barred under O. II, r. 2 is put in this way. It is said that the mortgage deed and the deed of lease were executed on the principal sum assured. These were therefore parts of the same transaction, and as the plaintiffs had already sued for what was in fact interest alone when they brought the earlier suit for arrears of rent, they could no longer sue again either for interest in the shape of rent or interest and principal.

4. The contention of the plaintiffs, on the other hand, is that this was a usufructuary mortgage, and they were entitled to sue the defendant, who became a tenant by virtue of the deed of lease, as and when the rent fell in arrears, and there was no question of the application of O. II, r. 2(1) in this case.

5. It is necessary to consider the terms of the mortgage in order to decide whether the suit is barred under O.II, r. 2. The mortgage deed shows that Rs. 700/- formed the principal money, and interest was fixed at 6% per annum In order to secure principal and interest the house was mortgaged with possession to the plaintiffs, and the mortgagor had taken back its possession by executing a deed of lease. It was also said that if the mortgagor made any objection to repayment of the money in court, it would be considered to be false. It may be deduced from this last provision that a suit for sale was also contemplated. The mortgage was thus on anomalous mortgage, i.e. a combination of a simple as well as a usufructuary mortgage. There is, however, no doubt that possession was given to the mortgagees, and they in turn transferred the property by a deed of lease to the mortgagor.

6. The question, therefore, that arises for determination is whether, in these circumstances, the fact that on a previous occasion the mortgagees brought a suit for arrears of rent, and did not sue for the principal bars them from bringing a suit again for arrears of rent which in this case was certainly equal to the interest due on the principal money.

7. The principles which govern cases of simple mortgages are well-settled by two decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council namely Muhammad Hafiz vs. Mirza Muhammad Zakariya(1) and Kishan Narain vs. Palamal(2). In Muhammad Hafizs case(1) there was a simple mortgage which provided that if interest was not paid for six months, the creditors would be competent to realize either the unpaid amount of the interest, or the amount of principal and interest both. When the interest remained unpaid, for creditor brought a suit only for interest. It was then held that as he could have brought a suit for the principal also his, subsequent suit for principal and inte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document