Somayya, J.-This second appeal raises several interesting questions relating to the law of subrogation and consolidation. The first defendant in the action is the appellant before us. The suit started as one for possession of the plaint mentioned property. The plaintiffs-respondents purchased the property in execution of a decree passed on foot of a mortgage executed on the 15th April, 1921; they got symbolical delivery and filed this suit for possession in 1941. The defence raised by the appellant is that before he is ejected, he should be paid Rs. 10,000 which was paid by him towards certain earlier mortgages. The trial Court upheld his plea but the Subordinate Judge awarded only Rs. 2,000 and disallowed the rest of his claim. Hence this second appeal.

There were five mortgages which have given rise to the several questions that arise for decision. One Komaraswami Goundan was the owner of the properties and he effected all the mortgages. The first mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage and the other four were simple mortgages. On the 21st June, 1916, Ex. D-8, a usufructuary mortgage, was executed for Rs. 2,000 to one Samiappan Goundan of items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule and of an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document