The judgment emphasizes that any arrangement among the members of the mortgagees tarwad is not binding on the mortgagors unless they were parties to the arrangement or consented to abide by it.

Devadoss, J.

1. The only question in this Second Appeal is whether the appellants who are the mortgagors should pay-interest to the mortgagees subsequent to the date of Exhibit E, a petition presented by the appellants under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appellants were bound to pay interest subsequent to the date of Exhibit E as they did not deposit the money under Section 83 so as to enable the persons entitled to the money, i.e., the mortgagees representatives, to draw it from Court.

2. The appellants mortgaged the properties to the tarwad of Defendants 1 and 2. At the time of the execution of the mortgage deed the karnavan was one Pangi Achan. Some time after, he was removed from the position of karnavan and the 1st defendant was appointed karnavan. Under an arrangement entered into between the appellants and the mortgagees it was arranged that the appellants should be in possession of the mortgaged property and should pay pattom in lieu of interest. Under an arrangement among the members of the mortgagees tarwad, Exhibit 1 in 1894, it was arranged that the pattom money should be collected by the 2nd defendant. When the appellants wanted to redeem the property, they deposited the mortgage amount in Court and stated that Defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to receive the money and that they should be asked to receive the amount and return the documents of title. The Court dismissed the petition under Section 83 as the 2nd defendant was not entitled to the money and as the deposit did not satisfy the terms of Section 83. Thereupon the appellants brought a suit for redemption. The Subordinate Judge held that in as much as the deposit under Section 88 was not a proper deposit as the 2nd defendant also was included in the petition, the appellants must pay interest subsequent to the date of Exhibit E.

3. The first point urged is that there was a dispute between Defendants 1 and 2, the de jure Karnavan and anandravan who was asked to manage some of the properties, and that the appellants were justified in depositing the money in Court. No doubt, if there was a dispute among the members of the defendants family as to who was entitled to receive the money and give a valid discharge, or if there was any dispute at the time, which could not be determined by a layman as to who the real person entitled was, the plaintiffs could deposit the money in Court and ask the Court to decide and pay the amount to the person who may be entitled. But where there is no such dispute among the members of the mortgagees family, it is not open to the mortgagors to deposit the money in Court and ask the Court to determine Who should receive it. In such a ca the mortgagors only invite trouble themselves if the deposit is not found conform to the requirements of Section 83, and they must bear the loss occasioned by the procedure which they have adopted. In this view of the case, I do not think the decisions in Subba Rao v. Pakkiammal Nadathi A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 453 and Nagathal v. Arumugam Pillai A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 354, to one of which I was a party, apply.

4. The next contention put forward is that there was a karar among the members of the defendants family and under that karar the 2nd defendant was entitled to receive the money and inasmuch as the pattom had been paid for over 20 years to the 2nd defendant, the mortgagors (plaintiffs) had reason to believe that the 2nd defendant was entitled to receive the mortgage amount. The plaintiffs were not parties to the karar and they had no business to concern themselves with the terms of a document to which they were not parties. Any arrangement inter se between the members of the mortgagees family is not binding on the mortgagors, unless they were parties to the arrangement or unless they consented to abide by it. Granting for arguments sake that the karar is a document on which the plaintiffs can rely there is nothing in the document to show that the 2nd