John Wallis, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of North Arcot in a suit for redemption brought by the first plaintiff as assignee of the mortgagor, the Raja of Kalahasti, now impleaded as the third defendant, against the first defendant who is the assignee of the original mortgagee, the Raja of Tuni. The mortgage deed, Exhibit A, provided for an advance of 11 lakhs on a usufructuary mortgage of the properties comprised in Schedules A, B, C and D, but the Schedule D property may be disregarded as it is of small value and was only included with a view to registration in the district in which it is situated. A decree for sale had been obtained by the mortgagees against the properties comprised in Schedules A, B and C and the properties comprised in Schedules B and C had actually been sold by the mortgagees, but proceedings were pending as to setting aside the sales. In the case of the Schedule C properties the sales were not ultimately set aside and the advance of 6 out of 11 lakhs which was to be contingent on setting aside the sale was never made, and we have no concern with them. Of the remaining 5 lakhs the recital shows that Rs. 2,50,000 was to be applied for the satisfaction of the decree against the A Schedule properties and Rs. 2,50,000 was to be retained by the mortgagee and applied partly in payment into Court of the entire debt due by the mortgagor under the decree of O.S. No. 7 of 1899 by which the 23 villages included in B Schedule had been ordered to be sold. At the date of the mortgage the villages had been sold, but the sales had been set aside and an appeal against the order setting them aside was then pending and subsequently was successful. The balance of the Rs. 2,50,000 was to be applied for the expenses of this litigation, and for the mortgagors expenses. The mortgagee paid Rs. 1,93,617 into Court in satisfaction of the decree in O.S. No. 7 of 1899, and incurred certain expenses in connexion with the litigation. There was a provision in the mortgage deed entitling the mortgagee, in the event of the sales being confirmed, to draw the amount deposited in Court by the auction purchasers. The sales were afterwards confirmed by consent of the mortgagor on 31st January 1911, and the mortgagees widow on 20th March 1911 sued to establish her right to the money deposited in Court by the auction purchasers, at the same time alleging that the consent given by the mortgagor to the setting aside of the sales was fraudulent. This suit was settled and an order made for payment out, but it is disputed whether the money so drawn on 24th April 1912 was Rs. 1,81,412-10-0 or Rs. 1,80,412-10-0 (Exhibit H4).

2. In the present suit the defendant has sought to recover on this head not only the difference between the sum paid into Court and the sum drawn out by him, namely Rs. 12,000, and the expenses he incurred in connexion with the litigation, but also the balance with interest of the Rs. 2,50,000 which was never advanced to the mortgagor at all, on the ground that it must be deemed to have been kept by the mortgagee at the mortgagors disposal. The Subordinate Judge declined to deal with these claims as he considered that this sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was not charged on the Schedule A properties which it is now sought to redeem, but was the subject of a separate mortgage effected in the same instrument on the Schedule B properties. It is however expressly provided in the deed that the properties in the four schedules were mortgaged for the whole eleven lakhs, and were to be put in the possession of the mortgagees. Again, there is provision that the 5 lakhs lent on the properties A, B and D Schedules, with which alone we are concerned, were not to be paid for four years, namely, until 13th March 1913, and that if the "entire amount" was then paid the mortgagee was to put the mortgagor in possession of the properties. A different period of redemption, six years, was fixed for the C Schedule propertie