Krishnan Pandalai, J.

1. This suit was brought on a mortgage dated 10th August, 1917, by the plaintiff as assignee from the mortgagee, the 6th defendant. Defendants 1 to 3 are the mortgagors. The 4th defendant since deceased was the father of the mortgagee and the 5th defendant is the son-in-law of the 4th defendant. The questions in dispute in this case arose from an order by the District Judge of Tinnevelly adjudging the 6th defendant a lunatic by an interim order dated 28th October, 1919, which was confirmed after security given on 16th January, 1920, by which the 4th defendant, his father, was appointed guardian of the person and manager of the property of the 6th defendant. The assignment by the 6th defendant of the mortgage was dated 11th June, 1923, i.e., some three and a half years after the order in lunacy and while it was still in force. The 6th defendant soon after the assignment, i.e., on 17th July, 1923, applied to have the order against himself set aside and it was set aside on 31st August, 1923, on the ground that he had ceased to be insane.

2. The dispute in the case was based upon two contentions. First, the 5th defendant contended that the same mortgage righ