CHAKRAPU ANJANEYULU Vs. KALAKOTI SARAVAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of an application to declare the amount due under a mortgage, applying Madras Act IV of 1938 and the rules framed thereunder. The mortgage in question is Ex. D-1 dated 20 November, 1936, for a sum of Rs. 6,680 in favour of two persons each of whom was previously entitled to amounts from the debtors which were equalised and clubbed together in the joint transaction. There is nothing in the recitals of the mortgage Ex. D-1 to indicate that the debts due to each of the two mortgagees separately were to be kept separate under the mortgage contract.

(2.) The position therefore is that a debt due to A and another debt due by the same debtors to B have been discharged by a joint mortgage executed by the debtors in favour of A and B. The lower Court has treated the mortgage as if it were not one debt but two debts and has scaled down each portion separately. C.M.A. No. 411 of 1944 is an appeal by the mortgagors in respect of the disallowance of their claim to relief having regard to the antecedent history of the portion of the mortgage debt due to second mortgagee. C.M.A. No. 568 of 1944 is an appeal by the first mortgagee against the relief given to the mortgagors in respect of the antecedent history of the portion of the debt due to him.

(3.) Quite apart from the question whether there is any renewal at all by the joint mortgage, it is plain that the contention of the appellants in C.M.A. No. 411 of 1944 must fail because the antecedent promissory note which is discharged by the mortgage is not in favour of the second mortgagee but in favour of the second mortgagee's adoptive mother and obviously one cannot go into the question whether she was a benamidar for her husband. There can be no renewal of an anterior debt in favour of a different creditor.