1. We are unable to agree with the appellant's Vakil's contention that the 2nd defendant is not entitled to rely on the possession of the Sub-mortgagee whose title has passed to the 2nd defendant. As the title passed under an express assignment, no question as to whether there was an intention to keep alive the sub-mortgage can arise.
2. The Subordinate Judge was, however, wrong in giving possession to the plaintiff under Section 264 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the lands comprised in the Sub-mortgage (Exhibit No. 20).
3. He should have given a redemption decree as to them also. In substitution of the decrees of the Courts below, it is hereby ordered and decreed that upon payment by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant within six months from this date of the mortgage amount Rs. 285-11-6 secured by Exhibit 20 and of the value of improvements Rs. 35-1-3 less the plaintiffs' costs of the suit decreed to him by the Court of first instance and amounting to Rs. 100-6-0 with interest on such costs at 6 per cent, per annum from the 28th March 1900 till the date of payment; the defendants shall deliver up to the plaintiff or to such person as he appoints all documents in their possession or power relating to the plaint properties (A series in the plan) and shall re-transfer the whole of the plaint properties to the plaintiff free from the mortgage and from all incumbrances created by the defendants or any person claiming under them and shall put the plaintiff into possession of the plaint properties (A series in the plan) with all appurtenances thereon excluding the four palmyra trees standing on the western side of A2. The parties will bear their own costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.