The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of subrogation and priority of mortgage rights in a complex mortgage dispute, particularly in the context of lis pendens and the rights of assignees of prior mortgagees.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The facts are set out in the opinion of my learned brother and I shall not repeat them. I entirely agree with my learned brother on the question of Us pendens and that we should follow the decision of our own court in Veerankutty Koundan v. Ramasami Asari (1915) 32 I.C. 431 in preference to the decision in Tilakdhari Singh v. Gourtiarain (1920) 5 P.L.J. 715.

2. The question which remains for consideration is whether the 25th defendant, the appellant, is entitled to stand in the shoes of the decree-holder in O.S. No. 6 of 1890 (whom I shall call the prior mortgagee) so that he (the appellant) can Set up those rights as a shield against the plaintiffs claim to proceed against the sum of Rs. 3,000 which now represents item 2 of the mortgaged properties, the said item 2 having been mortgaged both in that prior mortgage and in the plaintiffs subsequent mortgage sued on.

3. So far as the ownership right in item 2 (the Karvetnagar forest) now represented by the Rs. 3000 is concerned, I think that as the suit O. S. No. 6 of 1890 was properly constituted without notice of the plaintiffs subsequent mortgage, Revanur Subramaniya Aiyar obtained by his purchase in execution of his decree in the said suit complete title to the ownership of that property. The plaintiff, the subsequent mortgagee, not having been a party to the suit of 1890 is, however legally entitled to bring the present suit for sale on his mortgage notwithstanding that the property had been sold away in the former suit and even though his havitfg been not irnpleaded in the former suit was not due to any fault on the part of the prior mortgagee.

4. The further questions which arise for consideration on th e pleadings are (J) whether the court auction purchaser Revanur Subramaniya Aiyar, if he had continued to be ia possession of the forest as such purchaser and if he had been made a party to the plaintiffs present suit as being in such possession I of item 2 of the mortgaged properties could have claimed to elect to stand in the shoes of the prior mortgagee and td hold up either that prior mortgage or the rights declared by the decree passed on the footing of that mortgage, against the plaintiff,so as to compel the plaintiff to pay up the purchase-money so far as it went to discharge the prior mortgage decree before bringing item 2 to sale if item 2 had remained available for sale: (2) whether he would not have been legally entitled to set up th-at right because the purchase-money paid for his purchase of item 2in the court auction sale did not fully satisfy the decree in O. S. No. 6 of 1890: (3) whether even rf Revanur Subramania Aiyar might have had that right, the"25th defendant who represents the interests of Subbiah Chetti, a mortgageeunder Revanur Subramania Aiyar cannot claim to enforce the rights of Subramania Aiyar against the Rs. 3000 in dispute in order to satisfy the charge of Rs. 7000 and interest due under Subbiah Chettys mortgage (and which has ripened into a decree for Rs. 18,000 and odd in 1915 passed in a suit to which all persons then interested were made parties): (4) whether the 25th defendant is not entitled to set up Revanur Subramania Aiyars rights as a shield because the prior mortgagee would be barred if he brought a suit on his prior mortgage of 1886 on the date of the present suit in 1916: (5) whether Revanur Subramania Aiyar was merely a benamidar for the original mortgagor (the Rajah) and hence he would not have had the right to set up the rights of the prior mortgage decree holder as a shield against the plaintiffs subsequent mortgage and hence also the 25th defendant has no such right: and (6) whether the fact that the prior mortgagees rights as mortgagee were merged in the decree passed thereon extinguished the mortgage security and hence, it could not be revived to serve as a shield against the plaintiff in favour of Revanur Subramania Iyer and of persons claiming in his right and whether no other right exists whi