JUDGMENT

Sen, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal which arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,080 by enforcement of a mortgage, dated 28th August 1914, executed by one Faqire Lohar in favour of the appellant.

2. The mortgage was to secure a debt of Rs. 135. The mortgagor was indebted to the plaintiff under two earlier bonds, dated 22nd January 1911, and 18th April 1912, and the amount due to the mortgagee under these prior mortgage bonds together with interest amounted to Rs. 119. Rs. 6 were paid for expenses relating to the completion and registration of the document in suit and Rs. 10 were received before the Sub-Registrar. A tiled katcha house was mortgaged to secure this debt.

3. The stipulated rate of interest was Rs. 2 per mensem with monthly rests. The suit was instituted on 30th June 1925. The plaintiff claimed interest at Rs. 2 per mensem with annual rests.

4. The property mortgaged originally belonged to Bhano and Manohar, who had purchased the same from one Mahesh Shukul under a sale-deed, dated 20th January 1908. Bhano and Manohar sold the house to Faqire under an instrument, dated 20th November 1909 (Ex. A) for Rs. 150. Faqire mortgaged this property in favour of Kalyan Das on 28th August 1914 (Ex. 4). He next mortgaged the property to Arjan Sahu on 12th January 1915 for Rs. 138 (Ex. E). Faqire having died his sons Sheo Japat and Ram Japat sold the house to one Sri Kishun on 22nd October 1915 for Rs. 99. The sale-deed recites that the house has collapsed and is in ruins, that there is no person willing to pay more than Rs. 99, that the vendors are hard pressed for money and that therefore they execute the sale deed in favour of Sri Kishun for this amount. On 1st December 1916 Sri Kishun sold the house to Mt. Jan Bibi for Rs. 200. He handed over to the vendee some of the earlier title-deeds, namely, his own sale-deed, dated 22nd October 1915 (Ex. B) and the sale-deed dated 20th November 1909 under which Faqire had purchased this property from Bhano and Manohar, as also the mortgage in favour of Arjun Sahu, dated 12th January 1915.

5. There were two defendants in the suit, of whom Ram Japat, the son of the mortgagor, did not contest the suit. The suit was registered by Mt. Jan Bibi, defendant 2, upon a variety of grounds. It was pleaded that the mortgage was not genuine; that it was without consideration; that the interest charged was penal and excessive; that the contending defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value; that she had rebuilt the house at a cost of Rs. 1,000 and that the plaintiff was not entitled to have the property sold in enforcement of his mortgage without paying to the vendee Rs. 1,000 as compensation for improvements made by her which she was well entitled to u/s 51, T.P. Act.

6. The trial Court held that the execution and consideration of the mortgage bond were duly proved; that no neglect was brought home to the plaintiff for not having asked for all the title-deeds relating to the house from Faqire; that the defendant believed in good faith that she was the absolute owner of the house; that she spent, at least, Rs. 800 in rebuilding and improving the house and was entitled to the protection afforded by Section 51, T.P. Act; that the rate of interest was exorbitant and that the plaintiff was not entitled to more than Rs. 2 per mensem simple interest. The trial Court gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 460 and provided that defendant 2 was entitled to recover Rs. 800 from the sale proceeds and the balance, if any, was to be paid to the plaintiff.

7. The defendant submitted to the decree. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The learned District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court that the defendant had spent about Rs. 800 in reconstructing the house; that she believed in good faith that she was absolutely entitled to the property and that she was therefore entitled to the benefit of Section 51, T.P. Act. The Court further held that:

"the question of interest lay solely between the plaintif