JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. This appeal is connected with Second Appeal No. 298 of 1904, just disposed of. The first ground in the memorandum of appeal was abandoned, and the last ground was not pressed. The second and third grounds were supported, and they raise what is really the same question, that is, whether the mortgagee, having himself purchased part of the mortgaged property can throw the whole burden of the mortgage on the remainder of the mortgaged property. The answer to this question depends on the circumstances under which the purchase was made. Supposing A and B are mortgagors of certain property which they have jointly mortgaged to C. Now if C, the mortgagee himself, purchases the equity of redemption from A, it is clear that he cannot be permitted to throw on B's share the whole burden of his mortgage. In such a case B's share can only be saddled with the proportionate amount of the mortgage-debt. But if, as is the case here, C's purchase was at a sale in execution of a decree obtained on a prior mortgage, the case is different. The learned Judge finds that the mortgagee bought the Kachaura property at an open sale and not subject to any charge and that he must be presumed to have paid fair value for it. The case then stands thus, the whole of the Kachaura property has been swallowed up by the first mortgage and consequently the burden of the second mortgage falls entirely on the Agrana property. The owner of the latter property has under the circumstances no right of contribution against the owner of the Kachaura property. In support of the view taken we may refer to the decision in an unreported case of this Court in First Appeal No. 63 of 1903, decided on the 20th of April, 1905, and to the case of Sesha Ayyar v. Krishna Ayyangar,[1900] I.L.R., 24 Mad., 96. We are of opinion that the view taken by the courts below on the question raised in this appeal is right. We dismiss this appeal with costs, including in this court fees on the higher scale.