JUDGMENT : Richards, J. This appeal arises out of a suit upon foot of a mortgage. The original sum secured was Rs. 800, the date of the mortgage being the 15th of October, 1881. The amount now due is Rs. 110,578. The plaintiff, however, remits all except Rs. 20,000. The court below has given a decree subject to a prior mortgage, dated the 25th of February, 1880. The plaintiff comes here in appeal contending that this part of the decree was erroneous. This mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880, was made by one Musammat Narain Dei in favour of one Lachman Das. 2. The mortgage now sued upon was made by Musammat Narain Dei and other persons in favour of one Lala Shadi Ram who is the plaintiff in the present suit. Het Ram is the person who really contests the suit and in whose favour the court below declared that the sale should be subject to his prior mortgage. In appears that Het Ram purchased the property on the 3rd of June, 1883. At that time the property was subject to the mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880, and also to the mortgage of the 15th of October, 1881, upon which the present suit is based. Lachman Das brought a suit upon foot of the mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880, in the year 1892 and obtained a decree on the 7th of April, 1892. That decree has never, up to the present moment, been executed but it is alleged, and although there never was an express assignment, we shall assume it to be correct for the purposes of our judgment, that in the year 1896 Het Ram became entitled to the decree. The question is whether under these circumstances the court below was right in making it a condition of the decree for sale that Het Ram should have a prior right in respect of the mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880. 3. We think that if Het Ram had acquired the mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880, whilst he was still the owner of the property subject only to the mortgage now sued upon, he could probably set up the equity of his prior mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880. 3. We think that if Het Ram had acquired the mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880, whilst he was still the owner of the property subject only to the mortgage now sued upon, he could probably set up the equity of his prior mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880. But it seems to us that Het Ram can, in no sense, be regarded as the owner of the mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880. The suit was brought on foot of that mortgage and a decree obtained which, as already mentioned, has never up to this time been executed. We think that the mortgage merged in the decree and that the acquiring of the decree by Het Ram cannot possibly be said to have vested in him the mortgage upon which the decree was based. Neither is he in the position of a person who had purchased upon foot of a sale in execution of the decree based on the mortgage of the 25th of February, 1880. Under these circumstances we think the court below was wrong. It is very suspicious that no claim was made on foot of the mortgage now sued on until after the interest had mounted up to a sum many times the value of the property and, under the circumstances, we think that the plaintiff ought to have no costs in any court. We accordingly allow the appeal to this extent that we decree the plaintiff's claim for the amount mentioned in the decree of the court below but without any direction that it should be sold subject to any prior mortgage of Het Ram and with this further modification that we direct that the parties do pay their own costs in all courts. We extend the time for redemption to six months from this date.