( 1 ) THIS is a pltfs. appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- as damages for breach o a covenant in a mtge. deed.

( 2 ) THE deed was executed by the pltf. on 11-11-1934 in favour of Lala Nathu Lal and Faqir Chand, defts.-resps. 1 and 2 respectively, for Rs. 16,000/ -. This amount comprised two items, one of Rs. 1292-8/- paid to the mtgor. in cash and the other of Rs. 14,707-8/- left with the mtgees. for payment to Manna Lal, Jagannath and Madho Prasad prior mtgees, under a deed dated 27-4-1933, executed in their favour by the pltf.-applt.

( 3 ) THE later mtge.-deed in favour of defts. 1 and 2 provided that the pltf. mtgor. was to receive Rs. 47 p. m. from those defts. It is agreed that the pltf. in all received Rs. 2115 on this account. The clause relating to the payment of the amount left with the defts. mtgees. to the prior mtgees. was worded thus: "rs. 14,707-8/- mtge. money relating to the mtge.-deed in favour of Lala Manna Lal, Jagannath and Madho Prasad mtgees. are left with the mtgees. for the purpose of satisfaction of principal and interest and relates to the mortgaged property. I the executant, after getting the same paid, or deposited in Ct. in my presence by the mtgees. shall cause the said mtge.-deed to be returned after getting the amount satisfied pie to pie along with the papers concerned. Prom the date of registration liability for interest until the satisfaction of the amount of the mtge.-deed aforesaid shall be upon the mtgees. "

( 4 ) IT is obvious that no period having been fixed for payment of the amount left with the defts. mtgees to the prior mtgees. the same had to be paid by those deftf. either on the date of the mtge. in their favour or within a reasonable time from that date. Admittedly the amount was never paid by them to the prior mtgees. at any time, although they had obtained possession over the entire property mortgaged to them under the deed of 11-11-1934 aforesaid.

( 5 ) ON 28-9-1925 the pltf.-applt. applied under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act. The prior mtgees. and certain other creditors filed their written claims in those proceedings, but they were rejected as time-barred on 20-9-1938, and under Section 13 of the Act, their debts were discharged.

( 6 ) ON 2-1-1939 the pltf. was restored to possession over the property under Section 35, encumbered Estates Act after the proceedings under that Act had been transferred by the Special judge to the Collector. Thus the defts. mtgees. in the first instance, remained in possession of the property from 11-11-1934, the date of the mtge. up to 2-1-1939. The order putting the pltf. in possession of the property under the section just mentioned having then been set aside in appeal by the Board of Eevenue, the defts. mtgees got back possession over it on 20-8-1939. Thus the plfcf. himself had been in possession of the property from 2-1 to 20-8-1939, during which he realised Rs. 2,200/- as profits, paying Rs. 1576/- as Govt. revenue and leaving a net realisation of rs. 624 in his hands.

( 7 ) ADDING the amount of RS. 2115/- received by the pltf. at the rate of Rs. 47/- p. m. , as provided in the mtge.-deed, to this sum of Rs 624/-the pltf. received in all Rs. 2739/ -.

( 8 ) ON 25-1-1941, the pltf. again obtained possession over the mortgaged property as a result of a redemption decree under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. In this way the defts. , in the second instance, remained in possession of the property from 20-8-1939 to 25-1-1941. We may repeat that they had already once been in possession of the property from 11-11-1934, the date of the mtge to 2-1-1939, on which date the pltf. was restored to possession under Section 35, encumbered Estates Act.

( 9 ) NOW the pltf. s case was that the defts. , during the above periods of their possession, had realised over Rs. 15,000/- as profits. The learned Civil Judge, however, found that they had realised only Rs. 13,963-5-0/- and that out of this they (l) were entitled