The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 21, Rule 83, Civil Procedure Code in determining the enforceability of a mortgage deed and the validity of claims such as lis pendens and equitable liens.

Abdur Rahman, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of the Subardinate Judge at Madura on the basis of a mortgage deed (Ex. A) executed by or on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 on the 29th July, 1921, in the plaintiffs favour.

2. The only points for decision in this appeal relate to the enforceability of this mortgage deed and to the lien claimed by the appellant, who was the fifth defendant in the suit, on account of a payment made by his father in satisfaction of a money decree passed in O.S. No. 135 of 1920 against the defendants 1 to 4.

3. The facts which have led to this litigation may be briefly stated. A decree for a sum of Rs. 14,130-11-2 was passed against the defendants 1 to 4 on the 11th November, 1920, in O.S. No. 135 of 1920. The decree-holder made an application for execution and attached various items of property including the one (item No. 3 in those proceedings and the first item in the present suit) with which we are concerned in this appeal. The attachment was made on the 13th December, 1920. Daring the continuance of this attachment, seven items of property including the first item, were mortgaged by the judgment-debtors with the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 9,000 on the 29th July, 4921 (Ex. A). Out of this money, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was deposited by the Judgment-debtors on the 1st August, 1920, towards the decree passed in O.S. No. 135 of 1920) and an application (Ex. V) was made by them at the same time for the grant of a months time for paying the balance of the decretal amount by alienating the properties under attachment. This application was accepted and in accordance with his undertaking contained if the mortgage deed Ex. A the plaintiffs deposited two more sums of Rs. 1,050 and Rs. 1,450 on the two following days (that is, on the 2nd and 3rd August, 1921). The lodgment schedules on the record show that all these three items of Rs. 7,500 were deposited in Court towards the amount of the decree passed in Q.S. No. 135 of 1920. The balance was partly deducted by the plaintiffs towards their own dues and partly paid by them on behalf or the judgment-debtors. The decree was not, wholly satisfied and the Court, after the lapse of the time granted by it in pursuance of Ex. V proceeded to execute the decree. The proclamation of sale is not in evidence and we are not, for that reason, in a position to know the amount for which the sale was ordered. But having regard to the fact that Rs. 7,500 were paid towards the decree passed in O.S. No. 135 of 1920, we must presume that this sum must have been duly credited in partial satisfaction of that decree. Anyhow the execution took its course and the third item of that suit was sold in auction on the 5th October, 1921, for a sum exceeding Rs. 16,000. Before the sale was confirmed, the judgment-debtors applied to the Court on the 25th November, 1921, for permission under Order 21, Rule 83, Civil Procedure Code, to sell the third item privately and also to alienate three more properties (items 4 to 6 - Ex. IV) in the same manner. This was granted on the same day but the Court imposed a condition, as required by that rule on the judgment-debtors that the whole of the sale proceeds or other amounts raised by creating an incumbrance should be deposited by them in Court. A certificate was granted under the provisions of the same Rule 83(2) and the judgment-debtors executed a sale deed of the third item of property on the very next day in favour of Kuppuswami, the father of defendants 5 and 6 for a sum of Rs. 22,500 (Ex. I). Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 17,200 had been deposited by Kuppuswami in Court along with the judgment-debtors application, Ex. IV, on the 25th November, 1921, that is a day before the sale Heed was executed and the balance of Rs. 5,300 was deposited on the 10th December, 1921. Ex. III which is a copy of the lodgment schedule, however shows that this latter sum of Rs. 5,309 was paid towards the decree passed against the same j