Ramesam, J.

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of our brother Pandalai, J., in C.M.A. No. 375 of 1931. When the appeal came on for admission before our brothers Reilly and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ., while admitting it they directed it to be posted before a Bench of three Judges on the ground that the appeal raised a very important question on which conflicting views were expressed.

2. The facts of the case are as follows. The 1st defendant executed a deed of mortgage in favour of one Krishna Pillai on 30th May, 1924, for Rs. 20,000. The present 1st plaintiff is his brother, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and the 7th defendant are his nephews and the 4th plaintiff is his grand-nephew. Krishna Pillai died and in the family arrangement entered into after his death the mortgage document fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the 7th defendant. The 2nd defendant is the undivided brother of the 1st defendant. The property that was originally mortgaged was the othi right in the suit properties created in favour of the 1st defendant by one Dathaprakasam Pillai but after the suit mortgage, i.e., on 28th November, 1928, defendants 1 and 2 purchased the whole proprietary righ