JUDGMENT Madhavan Nair, J. 1. The decision in Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : A.I.R. 1916 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 Naicker v. Palaniswami Chettiar AIR1932Mad155 , and Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : A.I.R. 1916 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 Subramania Aiyar v. Swaminaha 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 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 763, which held that the Courts have a discretion to pass a personal decree against a non-mortgagor. In the present case, the learned Judge has given reasons for passing the decree. 2. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.