Jackson, J.

1. Appeal from the appellate order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat (in E.P. No. 1742 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Chowghat). There was a mortgage with possession and lease back on the same day. The appellant sued on the lease and obtained a decree and is attempting to bring the property to sale. The respondent resists, contending that such sale is contrary to the provisions of Order 34, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. The lower Courts have upheld this contention, hence the appeal.

2. I agree that the two documents in question Exs. A and B must be treated as one. In Ex. B, it is agreed that arrears shall be paid by the sale of the equity of redemption, which appellant points to as marking a difference between the two transactions, but I do not consider that is sufficient to justify their being treated as separate documents. Once the two documents are treated as one it must, I think, be taken as settled law (as observed below the Calcutta rulings seem to be contradictory) that although the mortgagee may obtain a decree for rent on the lease document alone, nevertheless his claim is one arising under the mortgage an