The plaintiff must first redeem the defendant's first charge. Once the equity is sold it cannot be sold over again, and the second purchaser gets no title to it. The plaintiff's remedy accordingly is not possession but sale as on a mortgage if his charge is not redeemed.

1. This judgment will govern First Appeal No. 75 of 1940 and First Appeal No. 76 of 1940. They turn on a construction of Section 9, C.P. Tenancy Act (Act I [1] of 1920). One is by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant.

2. One Kautikabai was the absolute occupancy tenant of the fields in suit. They can be divided into two groups and it will be convenient to speak of them as two fields. One, comprising five K NOS., was known as the Bhonslawala field, and the other, comprising KI No. 88, was known as Bhivseni. Both are situate in mouza Digras of which the defendant is the lambardar.

Kautikabai's rent fell into arrears and so the defendant instituted civil Suit No. 2 of 1930 against her for the arrears. He obtained a decree (EX. D-13) for Rs. 565-4-6 on 4th August 1930. He applied for execution, and the o Form was sent to the Collector. On 6th October 1934 the Collector ordered both sets of fields to be sold (Ex. D-15).

3. In the meanwhile, there were further arrears and BO a second suit (Civil Suit No. 247 of 1933) was launched on 30th March 1933. This resulted in a decree on 28th July 1933 (Ex. D-17) for Rs. 461-14-0. Here also, the c Form was sent to the Collector, and on 16th November 1934 the two executions were consolidated. The Collector ordered both sums to be included in one proclamation and directed the fields to be sold for the combined amounts (Ex. P-14).

One of the fields (Bhivseni) was sold on 19th January 1935 and was purchased by the decree, holder (the defendant lambardar in this case). The sale was confirmed in due course, and the defendant was placed in possession en 21st May 1935. The other field (Bhonslawala) was sold on 12th December 1935 and was also purchased by the defendant. This sale was also confirmed and the defendant was placed in possession on 26th May 1936.

4. Some years before the first rent suit was launched, namely in 1927, the plaintiff had filed a suit for money (Civil Suit No. 16 of 1927) against Kautikabai and certain others with whom we are not concerned. The parties compromised, and the plaintiff was given a consent decree on 23rd April 1930. This decree created a charge for Rs. 55,000 on the plaint fields and certain other property. The judgment in that suit is Ex. P-6. It will be observed that the charge was created during the pendency of the first rent suit but before the sale and before the decree.

In execution the plaintiff brought the Bhonslawala field to sale and purchased it himself on 28th June 1937. When he tried to take possession he was resisted by the defendant who had already been placed in possession in execution of his own decrees.

5. In the present suit the plaintiff seeks possession of the Bhonslawala field which he purchased and claims priority over the defendant. In the alternative, he claims the right to redeem the two fields by paying the defendant the price of his decrees etc., and on redemption he prays that he be placed in possession of Bhonslawala; and as regards the other field, he claims the right to bring it to sale, free of the defendant's encumbrances, in satisfaction of the unsatisfied part of his decree.

6. The question at issue is who is to get priority and to what extent. It arises because of Section 9, C.P. Tenancy Act of 1920. But before going into that it will be necessary to define the respective positions of the plaintiff and the defendant qua holders of the right to redeem. Both have charges on the property. The defendant purchased the right to redeem the Bhonslawala field, which alone is in suit, oh 12th December 1935. The plaintiff purchased on 28th June 1937. Therefore, so far as the ownership of the field is concerned, the defendant gets priority, and for purposes of redemption he must be treated as owner of the equity of redemption. As regards the priority of their respective charges and the results which flow from that, that is governed by Section 9 which we will now have to examine.

7. Section 9 provides:

(1) that the rent of the holding