JUDGMENT
1. We are clear that the information given to Sitharamanuja Chari that the title-deeds were deposited with Kameswaramma “as security towards the debt of the note for Rs. 350 executed and given on the 11th September 1897 in favour of Kameswaramma” was sufficient to put him on enquiry as to why the deeds were not with the mortgagor and he must be held to have had constructive notice of the agreement to give Kameswaramma a mortgage of the lands. In accordance with the principles embodied in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 91. of the Indian Trusts Act Sitharamanuja’s mortgage interest must be postponed to that of Kameswaramma.
2. We set aside the decrees of the Courts below in Original Suit No. 410 of 1901 and direct that Kameswaramma have the usual mortgage decree with costs throughout, and in Original Suit No. 31 of 1902 that the decree in favour of Sitharamanuja be subject to the mortgage amount due to Kameswaramma as found in Original Suit No. 410 of 1901. Kameswaramma must have her costs throughout in this suit also from Sitharamanuja Chari.