Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. The facts of this case so far as they are necessary for the decision of this second appeal are briefly as follow. One Vedachala executed an usufructuary mortgage deed to one Thangavelu on the 7th April 1900, Ex. II. This mortgage was subsequently transferred to the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the suit. The 1st defendant is the heir of Thangavelu. Vedachala had three sons. He and each of the sons were therefore entitled to a fourth share in the property. On the 2nd May 1900 two of the sons Singaravelu and Tiruvengada sold their half share of the property to the 4th defendant. The mortgagees, the 2nd and 3rd defendants received half of their debt from the 4th defendant and gave up possession of a portion of the properties to him.

2. The plaintiff obtained a transfer of the equity of redemption from Vedachela and his remaining son and he has instituted his suit for redemption of the mortgage. He claims to be entitled to be put in possession of the whole property mortgaged by Vedachala on payment of the whole amount and is not content with a decree for possession of half the property on payment of half the mortgage amount. The 4th defendant resists the plaintif