JUDGMENT Madhvan Nair, J. 1. The decision in Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 supports the appellants case that personal decree for costs cannot be passed against a person who is a non-mortgagor in a suit by the mortgagee, but in Ramakrishna Ayyar v. Raghunatha Ayyar AIR1931Mad272 it was held that such a decree can be passed. In Rajagopalaswami Naicken v. Palanisaml Chettiar AIR1932Mad155 , Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 was considered and explained by the learned Judges. Though the circumstances were somewhat different, the learned Judges held that a decree for costs personally against the non-mortgagor can be passed on a mortgage action. In Subramanin Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar AIR1935Mad121 the proposition is stated to be an undoubted one, though there is no discussion of the point. I am inclined to agree with the decision subsequent to Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 which held that the Courts have a discretion to pass a personal decree against a non-mortgagor. 2. In the present case, the learned Judge has given reasons for passing the decree. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.