Horwill, J.

1. The appellants vendor was the mortgagee of a two-thirds share in the suit house. That mortgage had been executed by the uncles of Subbayya; and what they mortgaged purported to be their two-thirds share of that house. They died soon afterwards and a mortgage suit was brought against Subbayya as the legal representative of his uncles and in execution of the resultant decree the appellants vendor purchased the property. Subbayya himself had mortgaged the whole of the house to the respondent, purporting to act as manager of the family of himself and his two uncles. The respondent brought a suit on that mortgage and purchased the house in execution. It was delivered on 13th July, 1930. When the appellant tried to obtain possession, he was obstructed by the respondent. He sought for the removal of that obstruction, but his petition was dismissed on the ground that his proper remedy was to file a partition suit, such as was suggested in Mandavalli Rama Rao v. Sivanarayana (1918) 9 L.W. 81 and Nambiamattil Pokker v. Kithakki Kunhi Paihuma I.L.R. (1905) Mad. 296. Instead of taking the matter in appeal, the appellant filed the suit out of which this second appeal arise