Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He and the defendants Nos. 21 to 24 are the urallers of the plaint devaswom. The plaintiff brought the suit on behalf of the devaswom to redeem a mortgage granted in February 1887 for Rs. 3,500, the first defendant having executed the registered kaichit, or counterpart Exhibit A, to the devaswom urallers. Both the Courts found that the 1st defendant acted beyond the scope of his authority in executing this kaichit, Exhibit A, and that he did not properly represent the tarwad of the defendants Nos. 1 to 16 in executing the kaichit. The Subordinate Judge, however, gave a decree for redemption of an old mortgage of 1833 granted by the devaswom to the family of the defendants Nos. 1 to 16 for Rs. 1,885-11-5. The learned District Judge, however, held that as the devaswom had brought a prior suit No. 320 of 1886 for redemption of this old mortgage of 1833 and had withdrawn that suit without liberty to bring a fresh suit, the plaintiff cannot be allowed under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Clause 3, to succeed in this second suit and to obtain the same relief which he had prayed for in the prior suit. The principal question in this case, ther