Rajamannar, C.J.- This appeal against the judgment of Raghava Rao, J., in C.M.A.No.652 of 1948 arises in the execution of the decree in O.S.No.15 of 1941 on the file of the District Judge of South Arcot. That was a suit brought on foot of a mortgage against three defendants, of whom defendant 3 was the son of defendant 1 and defendant 2 his brother’s son. The preliminary decree declared that the total amount due to the mortgagees-plaintiffs on the mortgage was a sum of Rs.5,021-2-4 But out of this amount, while the share of defendants 1 and 3 in the hypotheca would be liable for the entire amount the share of the 2nd defendant would be liable only for a sum of Rs.4,922-7-3. On appeal this Court modified the decree passed by the District Judge by further reducing the liability of the 2nd defendant to a sum of Rs.3,728-4-9. Subsequent to the decree, defendants 1 and 3 appear to have Paid in all a sum of Rs.3,498-15-0. The decree-holders thereafter filed an execution petiton (No.22 of 1948) against the 2nd defendant only for the balance of Rs.2,667-9-6 due for the decree amount and subsequent interest. In this petition, they made the statement that so far as defendants 1 and 2 were concerned, they were exonerated from the execution. The decree-holders prayed that the share of the 2nd defendant in the mortgaged properties may be sold for the amount due to them. The 2nd defendant inter alia raised an objection to the amount for which the execution was laid. He claimed the benefit of the amount of Rs.3,498-15-0 which had been paid by defendants 1 and 3. According to him, only about a sum of Rs.114-10-0 was due from him, in respect of which execution could be taken against him. The learned District Judge of South Arcot overruled the objections of the 2nd defendant and directed execution to proceed. His view was that according to the terms of the decree all the three defendants were liable jointly and severally for the lesser sum of Rs.3,728-4-9 while for the difference between this sum and Rs.5,021-2-4 only defendants 1 and 3 would be liable, and so long as his share of the hypotheca was not proceeded against for a liability of more than Rs.3,728-4-9, the 2nd defendant could not have any ground for complaint. There was an appeal by the 2nd defendant to this Court, which came up for disposal before Raghava Rao, J. He allowed it in part and modified the order of the Court below by directing that execution should proceed only for the difference outstanding after giving credit to the payment made by defendants 1 and 3 in so far as the appellant’s share was concerned. He relied in support of his conclusion on the decision of this Court in Kailasa Thevar v. Ramaswami Aiyangar1 and the earlier case in Subramanian Chettiar v. Ramachandra Reddiar2, which was more or less to the same effect. The decision in Kailasa Thevar v. Ramaswami Aiyangar1 was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in Ramaswami Aiyangar v. Kailasa Thevar.3 In our view, those decisions are of no assistance whatever for the decision of the question which arises in this case. In our opinion, the matter is really one of appropriation. Here is a decree for Rs.5,021-2-4 for which the shares of defendants 1 and 3 were liable, but the share of the 2nd defendant was liable only in respect of a portion of this amount, viz., Rs.3,728-4-9. In effect, it is, as it were, that there were two debts, or to be more accurate, two portions of the same debt, one portion payable by all of them, and the other payable only by defendants 1 and 3. Admittedly, the money was paid by defendants 1 and 3 who were liable not only for the sum of Rs.3,728-4-9, in common with defendant 2 but also for the excess to make up the total decree amount of Rs.5,021-2-4. The decree-holder in such circumstances will, we think, be entitled to appropriate the payment first towards that portion of the decree for which defendants 1 and 3 were liable and appropriate only the balance towards. the portion for which they were liable along with the 2nd defendant. We see neither law now equity in the contention of the 2nd defendant that he should get the benefit and his liability should be reduced by a payment made by defendants. 1 and 3. The decree clearly made his share liable to the extent of Rs.3,728-4-9 and so long as he is not made liable to a larger extent, he cannot complain. 1 and 3. The decree clearly made his share liable to the extent of Rs.3,728-4-9 and so long as he is not made liable to a larger extent, he cannot complain. The contention on behalf of the 2nd defendant that the decree was one and indivisible and whichever defendant made any payment the payment should go in reduction of the decree may, so far as it goes, be right, but that does not lead to a conclusion as regards the relative liability of the parties for the balance. We actually find that what the decree-holders in effect have done is to collect from defendants 1 and 3 about half the amount of common liability of Rs.3,728-4-9 and the excess over the common liability for which defendants 1 and 3 were liable, together with further interest. Having done so and having exonerated them, the decree holders are now proceeding against the 2nd defendant for the other half of the common liability. The course followed by them appears to be entirely fair and equitable and we are unable to find any legal objection to such a course. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of Raghava Rao, J., and restore the order passed by the learned District Judge. The respondent second defendant shall pay the costs of the appellants here and before Raghava Rao, J. K.C. ------- Appeal allowed.