Horwill, J.

1. The plaintiffs lent a sum of money on a promissory note to the late mahant of the Lakshminarasimha Swami Mutt at Haradakhandi and have brought this suit against the present holders of the mutt for the recovery of the amount due. Both the lower Courts have found that the debt was not for the necessity of the mutt and was therefore not binding on the present mahant. In giving a decree against the personal property, if any of the late mahant, both Courts have held that the arrears of rent due during the lifetime of the late mahant and since collected are the personal property of the late mahant and therefore liable in satisfaction of the decree. An appeal has been filed against this incidental finding, while a memorandum of cross-objections has been filed with regard to the main finding that the debt is not binding on the mutt. Both Courts held that arrears of rent due before the late mahants death but not collected by him were his personal property, because of a dictum of Ramesam, J. reported Lakshmindra Thirthaswamiar v. Vibhudapriya Thirthaswamiar AIR 1923 Mad 288. That too was a suit against a mutt and it was held that the debt was not binding on the mutt. No