(1.) These are two appeals by the defendants.
(2.) The facts are as follows: The plaintiffs second party owed Rs. 495-9-6 to Puran Rai on two mortgages and two handnotes. Being pressed by their creditor to repay their debts they executed in favour of the defendants two documents in order to raise the necessary money on 2 July, 1928. One was a sale deed for Rs. 300 and the other a sudbharna bond for Rs. 195-9-6. The defendants were put in possession of the land thus sold to them and of the land mortgaged to them. The consideration for the sale of the land and the mortgage was not paid to the plaintiffs second party but left with the defendants for payment to Puran Rai. Defendants failed to pay to Puran Rai. Plaintiffs second party themselves paid off the hand-notes on 25 March 1929 and Puran Rai sued them on the mortgages and obtained a decree on 7 February 1934. On 6 August of the same year, in order to meet the costs of this litigation, the plaintiffs executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs first party for a consideration of Rs. 700 in respect both of the lands which had been sold to the defendants and of the land which had been mortgaged to them in 1928. Subsequently, the lands mortgaged in 1928 to the defendants were put up for sale in execution of a money decree against the plaintiffs second party and purchased by plaintiffs third party. The present suit was instituted on 24 September 1935. The plaintiffs sought to recover possession of the land covered by the sale deed and mortgage of 1928 and the consideration which the defendants had failed to pay.
(3.) The defence was that Puran Rai's hand-notes had been paid off by the defendants and that the money due on Puran Rai's mortgages had been paid to the plaintiffs second party at their request when they were in need of money for the expenses of a sradh ceremony. Neither of the Courts below has accepted either of these defences. So far as the lands sold to the defendants in 1928 are concerned, the first Court held that as the title had passed to the defendants the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover them. So far as the lands mortgaged with the defendants in 1928 are concerned, the trial Court gave the plaintiffs a decree for possession and mesne profits.