1. Following the Full Bench decision in Arumugam Chetty v. Muthu Koundan (1918) 37 M.L.J. 166 (F.B.), we hold that this second appeal fails and dismiss it. The learned Advocate-General who appeared for the appellant did not argue the second appeal, but contended that as it was filed after the Privy Council decision Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh (1917) I.L.R. 39 All. 437 : 33 M.L.J. 14 and on the strength of Badagala Jogi Naidu v. Bondalam Papiah Naidu (1918) 35 M.L.J. 382, in which Spencer and Krishnan, JJ., interpreted the Privy Council ruling to mean that a deed of mortgage cannot be relied on as an antecedent debt, this Court should not direct the appellant to pay the respondents costs. Mr. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar on the other hand contended that unless there was misconduct on the part of the successful party or unless it would be manifestly unjust on the merits of the case to visit the defeated party with costs, costs should follow the event. There can be no doubt that the rule enunciated in Section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code as to costs is wider than the English rule (Order 65 Rule 1) as to actions tried by a jury which enjoins on the Judge to withold the costs for