Srinivasan, J.

(1) The correctness of the decision in Sreenivasa Rao v. Abdul Rahim Sahib AIR1956Mad618 is the question that is raised in these two appeals. We shall briefly set out the facts leading thereto.

(2) S. A. No. 1048 of 1957 arises out of a suit on a mortgage executed on 26-10-1949. The principal sum was Rs. 2000/- and the contract rate of interest 18 per cent. A sum of Rs. 900/- had been paid by the mortgagors towards interest upto 1-4-1952. It has been duly appropriated. In the suit, the mortgagors contended that the payment of Rs. 900/- should be credited towards the principal. Relying on Ramalakshmi v. Gopalakrishna Rao AIR1945Mad12 the trial Court rejected this contention; but in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that AIR1956Mad618 , applied to the facts of the case. He accordingly reopened the appropriation already made. By the time the matter came up in second appeal before Somasundaram, J., the decision in S. M. Tharanganar v. Sankarapandia Mudaliar, AIR1959Mad96 (FB), had been rendered by a Full Bench of this Court. The learned Judge was inclined to take the view that the Full Bench decision in effect overruled the decision in AIR1956Mad618 , and