1. In these cases the plaintiff appellant is the same person. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are also the same, the latter being the son of the former.

2. The suit to which second appeal No. 1022 of 1905 relates is to recover from the 1st defendant and by sale of the mortgaged property the sum of Rs. 1,034 being the principal and interest due on a mortgage deed executed to the plaintiffs by the 1st defendant in 1900.

3. The suit to which second appeal No. 1023 of 1905 relates is to recover possession of certain lands sold to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant.

4. In the first suit the District Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree against the 1st defendant personally, but exonerated the property. The second suit was dismissed. The decrees were confirmed in appeal.

5. Prior to the mortgage and sale there was a partition between the 1st and 2nd defendants in which the properties now in suit fell to the share of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the 2nd defendant subsequently released his share in favour of the 1st defendant who thus became exclusively entitled to the property. Both the Courts below have found, however, that the release was not binding upon the 2nd defendant, an