(1.) THIS appeal arises from a suit instituted by Udairaj (whose legal representative is the present appellant), against (1) Mangalchand, (2) Kanti Prasad and (3) Rameshchand for recovery of Rs. 15,770 by sale of mortgaged property.
(2.) THE suit was based on foot of two registered mortgage-deeds dated June 12, 1946, and December 13, 1949, executed by Mangalchand, defendant No. 1. THEse mortgages were simple.
(3.) IT is not disputed before us that the mortgage executed by Mangalchand in favour of Kanti Prasad and Rameshchand was prior, but it is contended for the appellant that when the preliminary decree was passed the mortgage- claim merged in the decree. IT is further argued that the compromise decree was itself a final decree and since no application for execution of that decree was made within three years, that decree became extinct and the claim of Kanti Prasad and Rameshchand under that decree was extinguished. Alternatively, it is argued that the application for final decree was made after the period of limitation had expired.