JUDGMENT Derbyshire, C. J. 1. The Appellant has appealed from a judgment of Edgley, J., delivered on March 20th, 1941, whereby the learned Judge refused the Appellant relief under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act of 1940. The Appellant is Jitendra Nath Ghose. The Respondent are Hrishikesh Banerjee and others who were Plaintiffs in the suits and Capt. Jitendra Nath Roy and others who were Defendants along with the Appellant in the suit. 2. The history of the matter is as follows. On February 27th, 1930, Capt. Roy, Narendra Nath Roy and Surendra Nath Roy joined in executing a mortgage in favour of Dr. Mahendra Nath Banerjee in consideration of a loan of Rs. 58,000 which carried interest at the rate of eleven per cent. per annum payable monthly with quarterly rests. The mortgage was in the form of an English mortgage. The date of re-payment was fixed for February 27th, 1931. The properties mortgaged were (1) 105, Russa Road, Kalighat, Calcutta and (2) part of premises No. 39, Raja Naba Kissen Street, Calcutta. The Russa Road property is outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court, but No. 39, Raja Naba Kissen Street, Calcutta, is a small piece of land within the jurisdiction said to be about 64 sq. feet in area and has obviously been included in the mortgage security so as to give this Court jurisdiction. 3. The original mortgagors apparently got into financial difficulties because on June 5th, 1935, there was an auction-sale in the Alipore Court of the right, title and interest of the mortgagors in the property No. 105, Russa Road and the Defendant-the present Appellant -purchased it for a sum of Rs. 1,000. What he purchased was the equity of redemption in the property No. 105, Russa Road. 4. On January 10th, 1937, the Appellant obtained delivery of possession of No. 105, Russa Road, subject to the mortgage. It may here be mentioned that at or immediately after the execution of the mortgage, the mortgagors executed a power-of-attorney in favour of the mortgagees which entitled the mortgagees to collect the rents and profits of No. 105, Russa Road. There is an allegation that No. 105, Russa Road is a large house which can be let out in separate lots fetching about Rs. 1,000 per month. 5. There is an allegation that No. 105, Russa Road is a large house which can be let out in separate lots fetching about Rs. 1,000 per month. 5. On June 3rd, 1937, the Plaintiffs, who are the sons of the original mortgagee and have succeeded to his interest in the property instituted the present mortgage suit No. 1144 of 1937. On January 9th, 1939, this Court made a preliminary decree in respect of the said mortgage. That decree ordered that the Registrar should take accounts of what was due to the Plaintiff as principal and interest on the mortgage after allowing such costs, charges and expenses as were proper in respect of the upkeep of the property. The original mortgagors and the present Appellant were Defendants in that suit. Paragraph 4 of the preliminary decree is as follows:- It is hereby further ordered and decreed that the Defendants or any one of them do pay into Court to the credit of this suit within six months of the date of such countersignature or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the Court, such sum as may be found due and the taxed costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs and the costs to be paid by the Plaintiffs etc. 6. That enquiry by the Registrar has not been completed. 7. In September, 1940, the Bengal Money-Lenders Act came into force which limits the interest payable where there is security for the loan to eight per cent. It also limits the total sum by way of principal and interest which is recoverable. On December 2nd, 3940, the present Appellant petitioned for the re-opening of the preliminary decree and the transactions between the parties, and the grant of such relief as he was entitled to under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The learned Judge dismissed his petition. The Petitioner relied on sec. 2 (2) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act which says that a "borrower" means a person to whom a loan is advanced and includes a successor-in-interest or surety. The 'learned Judge said: the Act was intended to provide relief to borrowers as regards money-lending transactions and to the representatives of such borrowers on whom liability in respect of the debt might subsequently devolve, for instance, after the death of the original borrower. The 'learned Judge said: the Act was intended to provide relief to borrowers as regards money-lending transactions and to the representatives of such borrowers on whom liability in respect of the debt might subsequently devolve, for instance, after the death of the original borrower. I do not think however that the expression "successor-in-interest" can be construed to include a person such as the petitioner in this case, who appears to have acquired the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property in a transaction of a speculative character. 8. The learned Judge in a later case [Saradindu Mukherjee v. Jahar Lall Agarwalla 46 C. W. N. 33 (1941)] appears to have concurred in a decision of Biswas, J., that the law was different. In my view, however, the question does not arise in this case. In the mortgage suit this Defendant along with the original mortgagors were both impleaded and according to the order and the preliminary decree this Defendant is liable to pay such sums as may be found due by the Registrar on the enquiry ordered. 9. The Bengal Money-Lenders Act directs a Court in sec. 36 as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if in any suit to which this Act applies, or in any suit brought by a borrower for relief under this section whether heard ex parte for otherwise, the Court has reason to believe that the exercise of one or more of the powers under this section will give relief to the borrower, it shall exercise all or any of the following powers as it may consider appropriate, namely, shall (a) reopen any transaction and take an account between the parties; and (c) release the borrower of all liability in excess of the limits specified in clauses (1) and (2) of sec. 30. 10. Cl. (1) of sec. 30 limits the interest payable to eight percent. 11. Obviously the Appellant was a party to the suit and he was affected by the preliminary decree which had been passed. If the attention of the Court be drawn to the provisions of the mortgage deed relating to interest at eleven per cent. and to the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, the Court must re-open the transactions on the lines laid down in the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. If the attention of the Court be drawn to the provisions of the mortgage deed relating to interest at eleven per cent. and to the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, the Court must re-open the transactions on the lines laid down in the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. If such re-opening gives relief as appears likely on the face of it, the Appellant will get the benefit of the new decree. 12. It has been suggested that he had no right to ask for that. He had every right to ask that the transaction between the lender and the borrower should be re-opened. If the amount which was found due was less than the amount the Plaintiff was claiming, he would be entitled under the decree made to the benefit of it. 13. In my view the Court had no option in this case but to open the transaction, ascertain the amount due under the loan according to the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act and make or re-make the preliminary decree accordingly. The Defendant is entitled to whatever benefit that may accrue owing to the Court having taken that course. 14. For these reasons I am of the opinion that this appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted to the Registrar for him to re-open the transaction in accordance with the directions that we have given and the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. 15. The Appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal. Certified for one Counsel. 16. The costs of the preliminary decree which have already been obtained will be the Plaintiffs' in any event. All subsequent costs except the costs of this appeal will be in the discretion of the learned Judge after the Registrar has reported. The Plaintiffs will pay the costs of the guardian ad litem both here and in the Court below. The order for costs of the guardian ad litem previously made will stand. The decree passed in Appeal No. 17 of 1939 will not be interfered with. 17. The question of installments will be in the discretion of the learned Judge. Nasim Ali, J. 18. I agree with my Lord, the Chief Justice, that this appeal should be allowed and that a fresh decree should he made in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The original borrower is a party to the present suit. 17. The question of installments will be in the discretion of the learned Judge. Nasim Ali, J. 18. I agree with my Lord, the Chief Justice, that this appeal should be allowed and that a fresh decree should he made in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The original borrower is a party to the present suit. The Appellant before us has not purchased the equity of redemption in all the mortgaged properties. The original borrower admittedly is entitled to get relief under the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. The question therefore as to whether the purchaser of a portion of the equity of redemption at a Court sale is a "successor-in-interest" within the meaning of the word 'borrower" in the Bengal Money-Lenders Act does not call for decision in the present case. Gentle, J. I agree.