The facts of this case are somewhat complicated. On 24th March, 1908, one Kidambi Narasimhacharyulu executed for himself and as guardian of his then minor sons who are defendants 2 and 3 in the present suit a deed of simple mortgage for Rs. 9,500 in favour of one Chaturvedula Surya-narayana mostly for the discharge of antecedent debts, which he had incurred. The mortgage was to be repaid in 12 annual instalments and it was provided that if default was committed in respect of the first, second and third instalments consecutively the entire amount of principal and interest should then become payable. A receiver appointed in O.S. No. 83 of 1915 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Bezwada, gave three mortgages over the same properties in favour of the first defendant in the present suit in the year 1918. In 1919 the equity of redemption of the Kidambis in those properties as also their interest in certain other properties were brought to sale in execution of a money decree against them in O.S. No. 69 of 1912 on the file of the District Court of Kistna and were purchased by Pyda China Ramakrishnayya, the fourth defendant in the present suit and one Addanki Lakshmanacharyulu who subsequently conveyed his interest to Pyda. The mortgagors having defaulted in the payment of the first three instalments due under the mortgage of 1908, Chaturvedula Suryanarayana filed O.S. No. 32 of 1921 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Bezwada, to recover the entire amount of principal and interest due under it, the defendants to that suit being the Kidambis and Pyda. Though the suit was filed on 23rd March, 1921, the present first defendant who had, as already stated, obtained three mortgages over the same properties in 1918 was for some unknown reason, not made a party to it. On 6th February, 1922, Pyda executed a sale deed whereby he conveyed his equity of redemption in the hypotheca to Chathurvedula Suryanarayana for a stated consideration of Rs. 36,000 which represented the amount claimed in O.S. No. 32 of 1921, costs and subsequent interest. The sale deed stated that the vendor received the sale amount by way of payment of the mortgage debt. It then recited that “both of us have filed razinama in the Court.” The mortgages granted to the present first defendant by the Receiver in O.S. No. 83 of 1915 were next referred to and it was distinctly provided that the vendee should retain the benefit of the first mortgage as against the subsequent mortgagee. On 8th February, 1922, O.S. No. 32 of 1921 was dismissed. There is some obscurity as to what exactly happened at the time of its dismissal. Neither party in the present litigation is able to produce a certified copy either of the judgment or of the decree and the only material that is available is an extract from the suits register. It is stated therein that the suit was dismissed “as per adjustment reported in I.A. No. 113 of 1922.” The present first defendant filed O.S. No. 3 of 1930 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam on foot of his three mortgages of 1918 impleading amongst others Pyda, the Kidambis and Chaturvedula Venkata Subramanyam the son of Suryanarayana who had died in 1929. Chaturvedula Venkata Subramanyam was the 6th defendant. By the time O.S. No. 3 of 1930 came on for hearing Pyda’s sale was held to be one brought about in furtherance of a scheme to defraud the creditors of the Kidambis, in a contest which arose between Pyda and an unsecured creditor of the Kidambis. In the judgment in O.S. No. 3 of 1930 Ex. P-7 it is mentioned that it was stated on behalf of the plaintiff therein, i.e., the present 1st defendant that Pyda’s sale had been set aside since the institution of the suit. The 6th defendant would appear to have put forward the sale in his father’s favour by Pyda on 6th February, 1922, but in view evidently of the fact that Pyda’s sale was itself declared to be invalid, no attempt was made on behalf of the 6th defendan