The main legal point established in the judgment is the prior mortgagee's right to profits, the applicability of the Usurious Loans Act 1918, and the interpretation of the mortgage bond's stipulations.

1. The two suits against the decrees in which these two appeals are laid were disposed of in one judgment. Natesa Chetty, the appellant in both appeals, was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 20 of 1934. In O.S. No. 24 of 1934 he was defendant 7. His adversary Ramalingam Chetty was defendant 4 in O.S. No. 20 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 24. He is the contesting respondent here. In a Court auction, held in pursuance of a mortgage decree, Natesa Chetty through a clerk purchased the mortgage property on 13th October 1924 and was put in possession by the Court on 16th October 1927. But Ramalingam Chetty was a puisne mortgagee of a major portion of the property and he had not been impleaded in the suit. His interest therefore remained unaffected by the decree. On 30th June 1932, Natesa Chetty filed what is now numbered as O.S. No. 20 of 1934 and on 10th August 1933 Ramalingam Chetty filed O.S. No. 24. Natesa Chettys suit was that the property comprised in the first mortgage be sold again and out of the sale proceeds he should be paid the amount due on that mortgage at that date of the plaint. Ramalingam Chettys suit proceeded on the assumption that the prior mortgage had been for the most part discharged and he prayed for a decree on foot of his mortgage. Implicit in these pleadings is the contention of the appellant that he is not liable to be debited with the profits of the land which accrued after 16th October 1927; and in his defence to the suit of the puisne mortgagee he alleged that on account of the threats of the mortgagors he had never got into possession. On the other hand, the case of the puisne mortgagee is that the profits so accruing have been nearly sufficient to wipe out the prior mortgage. The learned Subordinate Judge has found (1) that the appellant, Natesa Chetty, is entitled to priority in the amount of the prior mortgage calculated up to the date fixed for payment; (2) that this amount is to be arrived at by calculating interest at 12 per cent. and not at the penal rate stipulated in the bond since the latter was penal, usurious and excessive; (3) that the amount so found is to be reduced by the profits of the land from 16th October 1927 at the rate of Rs. 650 per annum. Natesa Chettys appeal is (a) that he was not in possession of the land at all; (b) that even if he was, he is not liable to account for the profits; (c) that in any event, he is not liable to account for the profits in a sum more than the amount of interest that accrued due on the mortgage during the time he was in possession; (d) that the profits have been over-estimated by the lower Court; (e) that the amount due to him should be calculated according to the mortgage deed.

2. The puisne mortgagee filed cross-objections in regard to the profits that the lower Court should have estimated them at at least Rs. 1000 per annum. We shall first take up the two questions of fact: Was the lower Court wrong in holding that Natesa Chetty got possession of the lands sold under the decree in the prior mortgage and is Rs. 650 per annum as an estimate of the average annual net profits too high or too low? On the question of possession, it is not denied that Nanjunda Iyer, the clerk of Natesa Chetty, took delivery of the land through Court on 16th October 1927. The case set up at the trial was that when Natesa Chetty tried to lease the land, he was prevented from doing so by the threats of the mortgagor and the mortgagors sons. The learned Subordinate Judge has stated that appellant failed to show in what manner the mortgagor and his sons were influential enough to defy the orders of the Court; that appellant has had the patta for the lands transferred to his name and has been paying the revenue due to Government regularly; and that, since the date of the alleged dispossession he has never moved any authority with a view to being put into possession nor complained to any public authority. Moreover, in respect of other lands in the same village purchased by him