Wadsworth, J.

1. These two appeals, both arise out of the execution of a mortgage decree which was passed in May, 1938, for a sum of Rs. 77,186-7-1. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 659 of 1941 was the 322nd defendant, and he is interested in items 193 to 196 out of the 11 items which have been sold. The appellants in C.M.A. No. 284 of 1942 are defendants 275, 276 and 346. They are interested in two items only which have been sold. The contention of the appellant in C.M.A. No. 659 is that the properties covered by the mortgage should be so marshalled as to enable him to realise something towards the puisne mortgage which he holds over the four items in which he is interested. This contention was repelled mainly on two grounds, firstly because his right to marshalling had been negatived by the finding on the issue in the suit and secondly because the decision in Thanmul Sowcar v. Ramadoss Reddiar (1892)2MLJ212 interprets Section 81 of the Transfer of Property Act as not allowing a puisne mortgagee to restrict in any way the prior mortgagees right to have the properties sold as he thinks fit.

2. On the first question, the appellant relies on two decisions, Raghavachariar v. Krishna