JUDGMENT
1. The facts found are that there was a decree for Rs. 750 on a mortgage against the interests of two persons in the mortgaged property Nagabhusanam and Punnamma. The plaintiff took a transfer of the decree from the decree-holder for Rs. 324. Afterwards the equity of redemption in the property of Nagabhushanam t1 and Punnamma passed by transfers respectively to the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to recover half the amount of the mortgage on the security of Nagabhushanam’s share in the hands of the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover only half the sum that he actually paid for purchasing the decree and not half the amount of the decree.
2. The lower Courts uphold this contention but we think that they were wrong in doing so. The case is not one where one of two mortgagors discharges an encumbrance binding on both. In that case the mortgagor doing so could not recover from his co-mortgagor more than a proportionate shave of the amount actually paid by him. Here the plaintiff’s purchase of the equity of redemption was subsequent to his purchase of the decree on the mortgage. This right as decree holder was complete before his purchase of the equity of redemption and could not be affected or curtailed by it.
3. We modify the decree of the Courts below by giving the plaintiff a decree for the whole of the amount sued for and costs throughout. Interest from the date of the Munsiff’s decree will be calculated at 6 per cent. The time for redemption will be till the 30th September 1913. The plaintiff will have a decree for a sale in default.
