JUDGMENT Akram, C.J. - This appeal by Defendants 1 and 6 arises out of a suit for declaration of the Plaintiff's title to the suit lands and for khas possession of the same. 2. The Plaintiff's cage was that one Madhab Chandra Nath borrowed Rs. 600 from a person palled Dina Bandhu Nath on 1st January 1930, by executing a mortgage bond in his favour, which comprised two plots of lands the home stead Plot No. 1 and the nal lands plot No. 2 of the mortgage bond. Later on the said Madhab Chandra Nath again borrowed another sum of Rs. 300 by mortgaging only plot No. 1 (namely, the homestead) of the previous bond to the Plaintiff sometime in September 1930. Dina Bandhu Nath then brought mortgage Suit No. 351 of 1936 impleading the Plaintiff also in the suit and on obtaining a mortgage decree applied for the execution of the same, in execution case NO. 107 of 1937. In the meanwhile, however, the Plaintiff obtained a mortgage decree upon his own mortgage bond of September 1930 and in execution thereof purchased the homestead (i.e. the aforesaid Plot No. 1) on 22nd September 1937. Having done so, he applied ostensibly u/s 81, T.P. Act, and secured an order for the sale of the nal land only (i.e., plot No. 2 aforesaid) in the first instance in execution Case No. 107 of 1937. The nal land only (i.e., plot NO. 2) was thereupon brought to sale in the execution case aforesaid, and the same was purchased by the Plaintiff on 18th September 1939 for Rs. 1162 odd, and delivery of possession was taken by the Plaintiff on 10th March 1910, but when the Plaintiff went to take actual possession he was resisted by Defendants 1 and 5 on the ground that on 23rd March 1937 Defendant 1 had purchased the nal land i.e., Plot NO. 2 for a sum of Rs. 40 in execution of a money decree in Small Cause Court Suit No. 310 of 1936 and obtained possession of the same and that Defendant 5 had subsequently purchased the said plot from Defendant 1. 3. 2 for a sum of Rs. 40 in execution of a money decree in Small Cause Court Suit No. 310 of 1936 and obtained possession of the same and that Defendant 5 had subsequently purchased the said plot from Defendant 1. 3. The main defence was: (1) the order of marshalling u/s 81, T.P. Act, was without jurisdiction and consequently the Plaintiff acquired no title by his auction purchase in execution case No. 107 of 1937; (2) that in any event the Plaintiff could not recover possession of the suit lands without payment to the Defendants a sum of Rs. 934 u/s 82, T.P. Act, by way of contribution. Both the Courts below decreed the Plaintiff's suit. The Defendants thereupon preferred the present appeal. 4. Once again the Defendants Appellants have urged before us the same contentions mentioned above. It seems to me however that the Appellants in this case have entirely misunderstood the situation and misconceived their position. No doubt it is true that Section 81, T.P. Act, has no application to the facts of this case; but neither has Section 82. In my opinion no question either of marshalling or of contribution arises. Dina Bandhu Nath was clearly entitled to execute his decree against any of the mortgaged properties he liked, there was but one single mortgage in existence at the time, and the equity of redemption, we may take it, was in Defendant 1 who had made his purchase under the money decree while the mortgage suit was pending; there was no other mortgage which existed for the application of Section 81 or Section 82, T. P Act. I Cannot see how there could be any marshalling or any claim for contribution as against the auction-purchaser of execution case No. 107 of 1987, in those circumstances. Section 82, T.P. Act applies to mortgagors inter se and gives one mortgagor a right to have the other's property contribute to the discharge of the mortgage debt, as was observed in the case of Umar Ali and Another Vs. Asmat Ali and Others, AIR 1931 Cal 251 . This right in my opinion cannot be availed of against the mortgagee or the auction purchaser. I, accordingly, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Court of appeal below, although I am unable to agree with it in the reasonings given in support of its conclusions. 5. Asmat Ali and Others, AIR 1931 Cal 251 . This right in my opinion cannot be availed of against the mortgagee or the auction purchaser. I, accordingly, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Court of appeal below, although I am unable to agree with it in the reasonings given in support of its conclusions. 5. The appeal is therefore, dismissed but without costs. The cross objection by the Plaintiff is also dismissed but without costs. Amin Ahmed, J. 6. I agree.