Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. In this second appeal, the only question arising is whether the mortgagee is estopped from denying the right of the mortgagor to the mortgaged properties on the date of the mortgage. The lower appellate Court held in favour of such an estoppel. This can be supported on the analogy of Section 65, Clause (a), T.P. Act. However Mr. T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar, the learned Advocate for the appellant, urges that his plea must be construed to be a plea, whereby he wants to show that the mortgagor who executed the mortgage deed was only a benamidar for one Virappa Mudaliar, the real owner. He says, that the appellant (the mortgagees son) is not estopped from setting up such a plea. The decision in Kuppukonan v. Thirugnasambandam Pillai (1908) 31 Mad 461 is in support of this contention, if what is stated therein as regards lessor and lessee is extended to a mortgagor and mortgagee. Now, assuming that he is not estopped from making out this plea, and also granting that such a plea has been proved, what is the position? This suit which is for redemption can be maintained by the benamidar as he was the executant of the mortgage deed. A benamidar for the mortgagee can