H J Stanyo—The plaintiff in this case alleges that the property in dispute belonged to the second defendant Motisa who on 30th July 1906 mortgaged it with one Kaluram Birbal for Rs. 700 and mortgaged it again on 25th August 190S with the first defendant Sakharam now dead for Rs. 1200. On 31st March 1910 the prior mortgagee obtained a conditional mortgage decree on his motgage the said decree being made absolute on 16th March 1912 after due notice to both defendants. Sakharam then in 1912 brought a suit on his mortgage against the mortgagor. He sued to recover Rs. 500 only and having relinquished his rights as a mortgagee, obtained a simple money decree. These two persons acted in collusion; the claim was admitted a decree passed and Sakharam attached the house in suit and got it auctioned. Plaintiff purchased the same for its full value and the sale was confirmed on 1st July 1913. The rights of Motiram in the house in dispute had already passed to the first mortagagee by virtue of his final decree. Sakharam at the time of the attachment and proclamation of sale or at the auction sale concealed the fact that the property was encumbered with the prior mortgage. He acted fraud