JUDGMENT Misra and Madeley, JJ. - This is an appeal againt a decree under (he. Encumbered Estates Act. The appeal has been filed by four creditors. Of the respondents 1 to 6 are the ap- plicants u/s 4 and 7 to IB are co-debtors. Respondent No. 14 is Sarju Prasad who put in a claim u/s 9 as a creditor. He is the creditor basides the appellants. 2. The facts of the case are that Rustam Slngu executed a mortgage deed for Rs. 25,686, in favour of Sarju (Prasad of eight annas share in village Birasi on the 3rd December, 1917. The mortgage was with possession and the rents and profits were to be taken in lieu of interest. On the 12th April, 1928, Sarju Prasad assigned his mortgagee (rights to Amir Hasan for Rs. 25,686. 3. The consideration of the deed of assignment was made up as follows : Rs. 4,996 for five prior pro-notes, Rs. 900 raid in cash before execution, Rs. 1,500 paid before the Sub-Registrar, Rs. 18,290 left in deposit with the assignee --------------------- to be paid later to the assignor. Total Rs. 25,686 4. The mortgagor Rustam Singh died leaving.a son, called Ganga Bux Singh, by Ms first wife and four sons by his second wife and a daughter-in-law who was the widow of a predeceased son.' The application u/s 4 was made on the 29th October, 1936, by Ganga Box Singh and his sons. The other heirs of Rustam Singh were brought on the record as co-debtors. 5. Amir Hasan isjdead and the four appellants are his sons. They claimed the money due under the mortgage deed of the 3rd December, 1917. They further claim arrears of rent due to the landlord at the time their possession ceased and remissions. The first amounts to a sum of Rs. 1,194-14-9 and the second to'Rs. 2,477-3-6. Another claim made by them was a "guzara" of Rs. 50 per annum which, according to them, was decreed as a charge on the property in favour of their grandfather. 6. Sarju Prasad the mortgagee also put in a claim against the assignee as co-creditor on the ground that a part of the consideration money for the assignment had not been paid. This claim was entertained and forms the subject-matter of this appeal. 7. 6. Sarju Prasad the mortgagee also put in a claim against the assignee as co-creditor on the ground that a part of the consideration money for the assignment had not been paid. This claim was entertained and forms the subject-matter of this appeal. 7. It is argued in this appeal that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction under the Encumbered Estates Act to entertain this claim at all, since it was a claim against the assignees alone and not against the landlord applicants. 8. We do not think that there is any thing in this' contention. The vendor becomes a charge-holder for the amount of the unpaid purchase money, This charge is against the mortgagee rights and it is recoverable from the property itself. His position is much the same as that of a sub-mortgagee, in Muhammad Bashair-uxtaman v. Pandit Suraj Narain (1909) 12 OC 260 it was held that a mortgagor is bound by a sub-mortgage of which be has notice. He can- not destroy the security of the sub-mortgagee by redeeming the mortgage. 9. Kanhai Lal v. Mahadeo Prdsad* is to the same effect. 10. The claim of Sarju Prasad is against the property of the mortgagor and the very fact that he has made this claim is sufficient proof that the mortgagor has notice. It the mortgagor is bound to satisfy this charge out of the mortgaged proper- ty, it follows that the amount of the charge must go to the diminution of the mortgagee's share of the debt. There is therefore no bar to the claim being made before the Special Judge. Indeed we fail to see how it could be made before any other Court. 11. We next come to the question of the receipt. The learned Judge has regarded all the receipts as genuine, but has held that Exh. B-18 for Rs. 1,300 relates to a bond dated the 10th March, 1928, whereas, the sale deed in dispute is dated the 12th April, 1928. The date of the bond, in respect of which this payment is made, is evidenced by the recital in the document itself. 12. He has further held that the receipts Exh, B-15 for Rs. 5,000 and Exh. B-16 for Rs. 600 overlap, the payment of Rs. 600 being included in the Rs. 6,000. Both these receipts are dated the 29th April, 1928. In Exh. 12. He has further held that the receipts Exh, B-15 for Rs. 5,000 and Exh. B-16 for Rs. 600 overlap, the payment of Rs. 600 being included in the Rs. 6,000. Both these receipts are dated the 29th April, 1928. In Exh. B-16 there is a notice in handwriting of Sarju Prasad that the (amount of the receipt for Rs. 600 was included in the other receipt for Rs. 6,000. He says that this shows that the entire sum of Rs. 5,000 was not paid when the receipt Exh. B-15 was written, and therefore, when Rs. 500 were paid on account of the same receipt, Exh. B-16 was taken, bit it was noted therein that the amount received was on account of an earlier receipt. 13. The appellants' argument/on this point is two fold. First he argues that because when Sarju, Prasad came into Court he told an impossiblejstory that all the receipts! were 'farzi" and were executed at the same time for thejpurfose of deceiving his brother, who might have brought a suit to claim a share in the consideration as joint family property, and further stated that there was no other bond, the full consideration should be-considered as having been paid. Sarju Prasad's,defence should be accepted or rejected as a whole. There is not any force in this argument. It appears; that both Sarju Prasad and the appellants! were trying to get more advantage than was due to them. Sarju Prasad was trying to get the whole of the mortgage money while the appellants were trying to get oul of paying anything at alt. This is not uncommon In order to render his story more plausible Sarji Prasad was bound to pretend that all the receipt elated to this transaction and all were fictitious ogether. Hence he was bound to deny that one if them related to a different bond. But if we eject his evidence, we are left only with the ecitals in the receipts as evidence of the payment at which they were nude. These recitals are very clear. The appellants did /not produce any evidence to explain away the facts stated in them. Learned 'Counsel for the appellants argues th.it since they were written in Hindi by Sarju Prasad himself, he may have made false entries to deceive the appellants. We think this most improbable. These recitals are very clear. The appellants did /not produce any evidence to explain away the facts stated in them. Learned 'Counsel for the appellants argues th.it since they were written in Hindi by Sarju Prasad himself, he may have made false entries to deceive the appellants. We think this most improbable. The appellants, even if they do not know Hindi (which is not proved), could easily have got the receipts read. Moreover Sarju Prasad did notary to make use of these recitals in thefway suggested. The case which he put up is in fact inconsistent with the recitals. 14. The appellants' Counsel admits that he Jhas no case with regard-fto remissions, but presses the claim for arrears on the basis of a clause in the mortgage deed. The fact is, however, that this claim was never made in the written statement and, though the appellants put in an application for amendment of this written statement, it was never amended by them. It is clear that no such claim can succeed now. 15. As to "guzara", the judgment of the lower Court shows that this claim was not pressed there. We have looked into the evidence and we are satisfied that, even if pressed, it could not have succeeded. . 16. We dismiss this appeal (with separate costs to Respondent No. 1 on Rs. 1,244-11-9 and to Respondent No. 14 on Rs. 1,800 against the appellants.