JUDGMENT

Srivastava, J - This is an application for revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, against the decree dated 7th December 1931, passed by the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh in the exercise of his Small Cause Court jurisdiction.

2. On 16th April 1924, the defendant Khedoo Singh and one Ram Chandra jointly purchased certain zamindari property for Rs. 2,700. The property was subject to a mortgage for Rs. 1,800 in favour of the aforesaid Khedoo Singh and one Bhagwati Prasad Singh. It was arranged that Ram Chandra should pay half the sale consideration payable by him in this way, namely Rs. 450, to the vendor and Rs. 900 to the mortgagee Bhagwati Prasad Singh. Khedoo Singh, the other purchaser, was to pay Rt. 450 cash to the vendor and retain Rs. 900 with him for his share of the mortgage money. Subsequently some pre-emption suits were instituted in respect of the sale-deed and the plaintiffs ultimately obtained a decree for pre-emption from this Court on 28th February 1927. Before the decree for pre-emption was passed, the mortgagees Kheedoo Singh and Bhagwati Prasad Singh had got a decree for Rs. 1,188 on the basis of their mortgage. This decree was put into execution and on 23rd February 1930 Rs. 1,188 were realized from the plaintiff pro-emptors.

3. The plaintiff's case was that they were liable to pay Rs. 900 which were left with Khedoo Singh in respect of his share of the mortgage money. They also admitted their liability to pay interest from the date of their obtaining possession. But they denied their liability to pay any interest before their obtaining possession. They therefore claim a decree for the interest which had been realized from them in respect of the period preceding the delivery of possession in their favour.

4. The lower Court has held the defendant liable to pay interest from the date of the sale-deed up to the date of the decree of the Chief Court on half the amount of Rs. 900 as representing his share of the mortgage. The contention of the plaintiffs in this application for revision is that the defendant should have been made liable for interest on the sum of Rs. 900 instead of Rs. 450.

5. The learned Counsel for the defendant supports this decision on the ground that the defendant is only one of the two mortgagees. In my opinion the view of the lower Court is not correct. As pointed out above, Bhagwati Prasad Singh, the other mortgagee, had been paid his share of the mortgage money in cash. The sum of Rs. 900 which was left with Khedoo Singh was in respect of his half interest in the mortgage. If he is therefore liable to pay interest for the period 16th April 1924 to 28th February 1927, the interest is payable on the entire amount of Rs. 900 and not merely on Rs. 450.

6. The learned Counsel for the defendant has also contended that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 47, Civil P.C., and by Article 2, Schedule 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. I agree with the lower Court that Section 47 does not apply to the case. Admittedly one of the plaintiffs was not a party to the decree and it is obvious that the question raised in this case could not be decided in the execution proceedings. In my opinion Article 2, Schedule 2. also has no application to the case. The suit is one for damages for money paid by the plaintiffs for which the defendant was liable. Article 2 has no application to such a suit. The result therefore is that I allow the application and modify the decree of the lower Court by giving the plaintiffs a decree for Rs. 155-4-0 instead of Rs. 77-10-0 allowed by the lower Court. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs in both the Courts.