1. We agree with the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bisheshur Dial v. Ram Sarup (1900) I.L.R. 22 All. 284 which was in accordance with the earlier Bombay decision in Lakshmidas v. Jamnadas Shankar Lal (1896) I.L.R. 22 Bom 304 and has been followed in Calcutta in Mir Easuf Ali Haji v. Punchanan Chetterjee (1910) 6. I.C. p. 842 : 11 Cal. L.J. 639. We have not been referred to any English authority in support of the opposite view. On the other hand, as pointed out in the last mentioned case, Lord Cottenham in Knight v. Marjeribanks (1897) I.L.R. 20 All. 23 cited with approval the statement in Sugdens Vendors and purchasers, Vol. 3 page 227, 10th edition "that a sale by a mortgagor to a mortgagee stands on the same principle as a sale between parties having no connection with each other, and can only be impeached on the ground of fraud," and added " that inadequacy of price would not be a sufficient ground to impeach such a sale." The dicisions that a mortgagee by purchasing a part of the mortgaged property extinguished the mortgage debt which were overruled in Nand Kishore v. Raja Hariraj Singh (1897) I.L.R. 20 All. 23 and the further decisions that