JUDGMENT

Knox, J. - One Jhamman Singh, on the 23rd of January 1894, executed two separate mortgage deeds over a 3 3/4 biswa share of zamindari property situate in mauza Ankheri. One of these was in favour of Paramsukh and the second in favour of Puran Mal.

2. On the 22nd of January 1886, each of the mortgagees, as represented by their heirs, instituted a separate suit against Jhamman Singh for recovery of the mortgage money and for enforcement of his lien over the mortgaged property. In each case the other mortgagee was made no party to the suit.

3. The suit brought by the heirs of Paramsukh terminated in a decree on the 1st of March 1886, and that brought by the heirs of Puran Mal in a decree dated the 5th of April 1886.

4. Sangari, the heir of Puran Mal, brought the property to sale on the 20th of July 1888, and purchased it. The heirs of Paramsukh, the appellants, did the same on the 20th of April 1889, and also themselves purchased it. Musammat Sangari had, however, been first in securing mutation of names in her favour in the Collector's records and in getting possession over the property, and she applied for partition. The appellants objected, but as they were not in possession, their objection was disallowed.

5. They accordingly instituted the present suit claiming that a decree might be given declaring their lien to be prior to that of Musammat Sangari, or that a moiety of the proper might be awarded them, or that they might be allowed to redeem the mortgage, subject to the payment of Musammat Sangari's lien. The Judge held that, as Balmukand in his first suit could, and should, have made Musammat Sangari a party to the case, and settled the question of proof and of priority and of his right to redeem, and as he had not done so, he could bring no second suit for the purpose u/s 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He based his decision to this effect upon an unreported decision of this Court in F.A. No.190 of 1889, and dismissed the appellants' suit. The appellants then came to this Court contending that their suit was not barred by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Division Bench of this Court considering that this point had been dealt with differently in two unreported decisions of this Court, viz. F.A. No. 190 of 1889, decided on the 22nd of June 1891, and S.A. No. 1042 of 1892, dated the 20th of July 1895, referred the point for decision by a Full Bench of this Court. It is admitted that Jhamman is not a necessary party to this suit. We are unanimously of opinion that the suit is not barred by Section 43. That section is one which has no reference to array of parties. We are not now concerned with the former suit instituted by the appellants. The contention was pressed upon us that as Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act required that in the first suit brought by the appellant; Musammat Sangari should have been joined as a party, and as the appellants were entitled when they brought their first suit both to the remedy against Jhamman Singh, viz., recovery of the mortgage money and enforcement of their lien in default, and to the remedy against Musammat Sangari, viz., redemption of the mortgaged property, subject to the payment of what was due to Musammat Sangari in respect of their cause of action, and as they omitted to sue for the latter remedy they cannot now sue for it.

6. This contention is based upon a misconception of the term ' cause of action.

7. The appellants had two separate causes of action at the time they instituted this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, namely, that against Jhamman Singh and that against Musammat Sangari. The object with which Section 85 was specially enacted was to enable the various incumbrances on one property (and each incumbrance represents a separate cause of action) to be brought into one suit and so save multiplicity of actions. It was never intended to, and could never, operate as a section fusing all causes of action arising out of each incum