Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. These two second appeals have arisen out of a suit brought by the Jenmi mortgagor to redeem Kanom mortgage. Various complicated questions chiefly relating (a) to the details of the properties mortgaged, (6) to the michavaram payable by the mortgageetenant (c) to the damages, if any, due to the mortgagee on account of the mortgagees inability to get possession of some of the mortgaged properties and (d) to the compensation, if any, payable from trees of spontaneous growth to the mortgagee have to be dealt with in these two second appeals, one of which is by the plaintiff and the other by the 1st defendants legal representatives. These questions might be thus stated in detail:

1. (a) Was the tank situated in the item 7 marked in the commissioners plan (and described in the mortgage document Exhibit A as the boundary Mark between items 6 and 7 of that deed) included in the mortgage demise?

(b) Has the Lower Appellate Court wrongly given a decree for the redemption of that tank also while deciding that the tank site is not included in the demise?

2. (a) Do those portions of the plaint mortgaged properties which were decided in the former suit 147 of 1890 to be