The correctness of the decision in Sreenivasa Rao v. Abdul Rahim Sahib1, is the question that is raised in these two appeals. We shall briefly set out the facts leading thereto.

S A. No. 1048 of 1957 arises out of a suit on a mortgage executed on 26th October, 1949. The principal sum was Rs. 2,000 and the contract rate of interest 18 per cent. A sum of Rs. 900 had been paid by the mortgagors towards interest up to 1st April, 1952. It has been duly appropriated. In the suit, the mortgagors contended that the payment of Rs. 900 should be credited towards the principal. Relying on Ramalakshmi v. Gopalakrishna Rao2, the trial Court rejected this contention ; but in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that Sreenivasa Rao v. Abdul Rahim Sahib1, applied to the facts of the case. He accordingly re-opened the appropriation already made. By the time the matter came up in second appeal before Somasundaram, J., the decision in S. M. Taraganar v. Sankarapandia Mudaliar3, had been rendered by a Full Bench of this Court. The learned Judge was inclined to take the view that the Full Bench decision in effect overruled the decision in Sreenivasa Rao v. Abdul Rahim Sahib1, and di