1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge. The plaintiff sues to redeem the hanom of 1857 to the then Karnavan of the defendant’s tarwad. Defendants Nos. 15, 16 and 17 who are members of the Tarwad and presumably, therefore, some of the mortgagees set up a sub-mortgage of 1891 in their favour by the Tarwad and claim to have acquired a title as mortgagees against the plaintiff under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. It cannot be said that they are purchasers for value of the property mortgaged as distinguished from the mortgage interest. We do not think that Manavikraman Ettan Thamburau v. Ammu 24 M. 471, has any application to the question raised before us. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to redeem the properties mortgaged under the kanom of 1857. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif. The amount payable by the plaintiff will be given to defendants Nos. 15, 16 and 17. The time for redemption is extended to 2 months from this date. The respondents will pay the appellant his costs in this and the lower appellate Court.