JUDGMENT : GRIFFIN, J. One Jagan Nath, owner of certain property, mortgaged it to one Behari Lal on the 17th of April, 1900. On the 5th of February, 1901, he made a second mortgage of the same property and some other property to Dalip Singh and Ram Chander Singh, the respondents in this Court. By this mortgage, which was for a sum of Rs. 350, Rs. 184 were left with the mortgagees in order that they should pay off the prior mortgage in favour of Behari Lal. This mortgage, we may mention, was a mortgage with possession for a term of eight years. This sum of Rs. 184 was never paid by Dalip Singh and Ram Chander to Behari Lal. On the 23rd January, 1903, Jagan Nath sold the equity of redemption in the property mortgaged to the plaintiffs-appellants before us, leaving with them Rs. 350 for discharge of the second mortgage. A suit was brought on the first mortgage with the result that, in order to save the property from sale, the plaintiffs-appellants had to pay into court the sum of Rs. 1,679-5-3 in satisfaction of the decree. In the present suit the plaintiffs seek to recover that amount from the defendants, Dalip Singh and Ram Chander Singh, who were mortgagees under the deed of the 5th of February, 1901. The court of first instance decreed the suit. The lower appellate court dismissed it, apparently on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants and apparently also because in the opinion of the court below the suit was barred by time. It appears to us that the plaintiffs stand in the shoes of the original owner, Jagan Nath. If he had paid the sum of Rs. 1,679-5-3 in satisfaction of the decree obtained on Behari Lal's mortgage he would have been entitled to recover that amount from the defendants-respondents before us, because it was owing to the latter's failure to carry out their contract that he became liable to pay this largely increased amount. It appears clear to us that limitation would run from the date on which Jagan Nath had to pay the decretal amount. The plaintiffs were entitled to all the rights and equities which would have arisen in favour of Jagan Nath. We think that the view taken by the court of first instance is correct. It appears clear to us that limitation would run from the date on which Jagan Nath had to pay the decretal amount. The plaintiffs were entitled to all the rights and equities which would have arisen in favour of Jagan Nath. We think that the view taken by the court of first instance is correct. We allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the court of first instance. The plaintiffs-appellants will have their costs in all courts.