Somayya, J.

1. This second appeal raises an important question on the construction to be placed on the wording of Section 41, T. P. Act. The facts that led to this appeal are these.

2. The appellants are defendants 8 to 11,13 and 14 who are the sons and daughters of one Ahmed Sahib. Respondents 1 to 5 are the representatives of Katta Subbayya the plaintiff in the suit. The other respondents are the heirs of one Bhandigi Sahib. Ahmed Sahib and Bhandigi Sahib were brothers. Bhandigi Sahib was a police head constable and had retired from service and settled in his native village. The other brother Ahmed Sahib was in service as a Sub-Inspector of Police and it appears that he sent a large sum of money to his brother Bhandigi Sahib. With the moneys so sent by Ahmed Sahib, Bhandigi Sahib purchased properties in his own name. The plaintiff Katta Subbayya took a simple mortgage from Bhandigi Sahib (Ex. B) on 6th August 1928. This was in order to pay off a debt due to one Mr. M. G. Rameswara Rao who was a leading advocate of Anantapur and now dead. Later on the plaintiff obtained a usufructuary mortgage in discharge of the simple mortgage which he had obtained in 1928. Exhibit A is th