P.N. Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal raises an important and interesting question, on which judicial opinion is not uniform Broadly speaking, in the reported cases two lines of approach have been indicated and two types of reasoning are to be found and either has the support of eminent judges, Indeed, the point is not free from difficulty and one should be cautious in dealing with it. Courts have had frequently to deal with problems, arising between prior and puisne mortgagees, when either has purchased the mortgaged property without Impleading the other These disputes have taken various forms and in deciding them, even where they have raised identical questions, a single clear-cut principle has not always been followed. This has led to diversity of views on different processes of reasoning and the question, now before me, provided an apt illustration of the case.
(2.) I shall turn now directly to the facts before me and I shall state them, so far as they are relevant for my present purpose.
(3.) On April 29, 1915, the predecessor-in-interest of the proforma defendants, who was the owner of the suit properties, mortgaged some of them to the present (principal) defendant for Rs. 49. On January 26, 1921, the remaining suit properties were similarly mortgaged to the same person, the defendant herein, for Rs. 199. Later on, on September 3, 1921, all those properties were mortgaged to the plaintiff.;