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 ex