G. C. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by some of the defendants against the concurrent decision of the court below raises inter alia rather an interesting question of law whether a second suit for redemption would lie. The plaintiff's suit for redemption was decreed by the Courts below and their decree directed the defendants to deliver possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the decree. The plaintiff was an assignee from defendant 3, a legal representative of the original mortgagor. Defendants 1 and 2 were the mortgagee and defendants 4 to 14 purchased different parcels of the mortgagee's interest from defendants 1 and 2.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff commenced a suit for redemption, simpliciter, to redeem a registered usufructuary mortgage, dated 25-9-1909 executed by Dandapani Mirsa, the late grandfather of defendant 3 in favour of the father of defendants 1 and 2, for a sum of Rs. 30/ -. Both the original mortgagor and the mortgagee are now dead. After the death of Dandapani, his son, since dead, and grand on the third defendant, by a registered deed of sale dated 10-8-1928, sold the mortgaged property to the present plaintiff the first and the 2nd