JUDGMENT 1. The Subordinate Judge finds that there was not gross negligence in the circumstances of this case on the part of the nth defendant, the prior mortgagee. The Subordinate Judge has accepted the nth defendants explanation for not having been possessed himself of the title deeds. We are also disposed to agree with the decision in Rangasami Naicken v. Annamalai Mudali I.L.R. (1907) M. 9 where it is pointed out that the same importance does not attach to the possession of the title deeds in the mofussil as in the city of Madras, and that facility in inspecting the registry provided by the registration law should be taken into account in determining whether there was gross regligence in the prior encumbrancer. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.