JUDGMENT : Stanley, J.:— The only question in this appeal is as to the date up to which interest is payable to the defendants-appellants on foot of a prior mortgage which was executed in their favour. The suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondent, who is a puisne mortgagee, for redemption of the plaintiffs mortgage and for sale of the mortgaged property to satisfy the amount which he may be obliged to pay in satisfaction of the prior mortgage and also the amount payable on foot of the puisne encumbrance. The mortgage of the defendants-appellants was executed on the 1st of April, 1880. The plaintiff's mortgage is dated the 20th of June, 1881 It appears that the defendants sued on foot of their mortgage for sale of the mortgaged property, but omitted to implead the puisne incumbrancer as they were bound to do under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. A decree however, was obtained in the suit and the property was put up for sale and purchased by the defendants-appellants themselves, and formal possession was given to them on the 17th of April, 1887. It was discovered after the sale that persons claiming to be prior mortgagees holding a mort-gage, dated; so far back as 1876, were in possession; and they disputed the right of the defendants-appellants to recover possession, with the result that the defendants-appellants did not get actual possession under their decree until the 11th of May, 1897. During the period, therefore, from the 17th of April, 1887, until the 11th of May, 1897, they received no profits whatever from the mortgaged property. The sale to the defendants-appellants Was obviously, hot binding upon the puisne incumbrancer, Pandit Kedar Nath, the plaintiff-respondent, inasmuch as he had not been impleaded in the suit of the defendants-appellants, on their mortgage. This Being so, he was not bound by the decree for sale and by the purchase made by the defendants-appellants, so that that sale for the purpose of working out the equities of the parties must be entirely disregarded. If we disregard it, the possession of the defendants-appellants so far as regards the plaintiff-respondent is that of prior mortgagee of the mortgaged property. 2. The prior mortgage is to be treated as a subsisting mortgage and the prior mortgagees are entitled to interest upon that mortgage until their mortgage has been satisfied. If we disregard it, the possession of the defendants-appellants so far as regards the plaintiff-respondent is that of prior mortgagee of the mortgaged property. 2. The prior mortgage is to be treated as a subsisting mortgage and the prior mortgagees are entitled to interest upon that mortgage until their mortgage has been satisfied. If the defendants had been able to obtain actual possession of the property on the 17th of April, 1887 when formal possession was given to them, then from that date undoubtedly they would not have been entitled to interest on their mortgage unless at least they accounted for the rents and profits of the property whilst they were in possession. They, however, from the 17th of April, 1887, down to the 11th of May, 1897, through no fault of their own, were unable to get possession or to realise any profits. Now the Courts below have disallowed interest on the mortgage during this period. The learned Officiating District Judge observes in his judgment as follows:— “it appears that Kampta Prasad and others who held possession of the property since their mortgage of 1876, would not allow Kedar Nath, the auction purchaser, possession under sale. Tin's necessitated Kedar Nath, the auction purchaser, suing them for possession of the property.” Then he says, “if Kedar Nath, the prior mortgagee, could not obtain actual possession before nth May, 1897, that was for no fault of the mortgagor or his representatives.” Kampta Prasad and others are the mortgagees of the holding under the earlier mortgage of 1876. The learned District Judge seems to think that it was not by fault of the mortgagor or his representative that the defendants-appellants could not get possession, but that it was through their own fault that they did not obtain possession. In this he appears to us to be mistaken. It was not through any fault on their part” that they were unable to get possession but it was owing to the fact that their mortgagors had already mortgaged the property to others, that they failed to get possession on the 17th of April, 1887. It appears to us, therefore, that the defendants-appellants are entitled to interest at the stipulated rate on their mortgage from the 17th of April, 1887, to the nth of May, 1897. It appears to us, therefore, that the defendants-appellants are entitled to interest at the stipulated rate on their mortgage from the 17th of April, 1887, to the nth of May, 1897. The appeal will therefore be allowed, and the decree of the Courts below modified by adding to the interest to be payable to the defendants appellants, interest at the stipulated rate for the period which we have mentioned. This interest the plaintiff-respondent will be allowed to add to the sum in respect of which the mortgaged properly is ordered to be sold. We extend the time for payment to the defendants-appellants of the sum which shall be ascertained to be due to them, up to the 15th of December, 1904, and we also extend the time for payment by the other defendants to the plaintiff-respondent of the sum including the interest above allowed in respect of which the property has been ordered to be sold’ up to the 15th of February, 1905. The defendants-appellants are entitled to their costs in all Courts. The objections are not pressed and are dismissed with costs.