B.B. Ghose, J.@mdashThe plaintiffs are the appellants in this case. The suit was brought for enforcing a mortgage executed by the s defendants
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff Company, in July 1913. Twenty-four items of property were mortgaged. Out of these, two items were
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in 1915 and the amount of compensation awarded was less than the mortgaged money. The plaintiffs
were entitled as mortgagees to take the whole amount of compensation in satisfaction of their mortgage. But the mortgagors were not willing that
the entire amount should foe taken by the mortgagees in payment of that debt. The plaintiff Company had two unsecured debts due from the
mortgagors. What the mortgagors wanted wag that the compensation money should be appropriated in full payment of the unsecured debts and a
portion of it should be taken by the mortgagees towards part satisfaction of the mortgage-debt. The mortgagees agreed to that and the unsecured
debts were paid off with a portion of the compensation money. In 1916, the congesting defendants No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 with some other
defendants purchased the equity of redemption in some of the mortgaged properties subject to the mortgage and they have been impleaded in this
suit as such purchasers. Their objection was that the mortgagees were bound to give credit for the entire amount of the compensation money in
reduction of the. mortgage debt. The Court of first instance made a decree in favour of the plaint Ms for the full amount of the ""mortgage-money
due nit on appeal by the contesting defendants, the power Appellate Court has vared that decree and dissected that Rs.2 money due on the
mortgage should be reduced by allowing credit for the amount that was paid in satisfaction of the unsecured debts due to the mortgagees. This
view in my opinion is erroneous portion of the property had been acquired under the Land Acquired t on Act before the contesting defendants had
acquired any interest in the property. Reliance any has been pieced by the learned Vakil for the respondents on the principle that where the
mortgagee receives any money by means or virtue of a security, it must be applied in reductions of the mortgage-debt. But that principle has no
application here. Before any third person had acquired any interest'' in any portion of the mortgaged property, the mortgagees were entitled, if they
so desired, to pay the whole amount of the compensation money to the mortgagors. They would there by have reduced their own security and the
in lerest of no other person would have been affected in any way. What happened in this case prate cally amounts to this that the mortgagees made
over a part of the compensation money to the mortgagors and the mortgagors paid it back to the mortgagees in satisfaction of their unsecured debt
As this happened before the contesting defendants had acquired any interest in the mortgaged property, they have no right ht to complan The
mortgagors themselves could not have after entering into the arrangment referred to above claimed that the mortgagees were bound to give credit
for the amount in satisfaction of the mortgagees debt which they had themselves asked the mortgagees to appropriate in satisfaction of some other
debt. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court set aside and those of the First Court restored
with costs in all Courts. As the period of redemption fixed by the Court of first instance has expired, that period will be extended by three months
from this date.
Walmsley, J.
2. I agree.
