1. The only point for determination in this appeal is a question of limitation, which arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage bond (Ex. A) of 1905 and the principal contesting defendant, (the 11th defendant) had a mortgage, in his favour, of 1902 (Ex. 1), To get over the prima facie priority of Ex. 1, plaintiff relied on the fact that his mortgage Ex. A. was practically a renewal of Ex. B, which, being dated May 21, 1892, was long anterior to Ex. 1. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal, accepted the plaintiffs claim to priority and gave him a decree as prayed for. On second appeal to this Court, Jackson J., reversed this decision, holding that on the date of Ex. A, the claim under Ex. B had become barred by limitation and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to priority as against the 11th defendant. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The way in which a renewal of an earlier mortgage operates as against intermediate transferees of the mortgaged property has been discussed in Kananoor Velayuda Reddi v. Beddyvari Narasimha Reddy 38 Ind. Cas. 240 : 32 M.L.J. 263 : 5 L.W. 111 : 21 M.L.T. 105 and Cadapalli Yagnanarayana v. Venkata Krish