( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal brought on behalf of defendant 9 and it arises out of a suit brought by the respondent-plaintiff for redemption of a, mortgage dt. 8th November 1915 under which a house site and a one half share in Vrithi were mortgaged with possession by one Laxmipathi Pandit in favour of Chandappa and another for a term of 10 years. The consideration for the mortgage was as follows: (a) Rs. 100 received in cash: (b) rs. 1,100 to be paid to discharge a prior mortgage of C. Nagappa: (c) rs. 300 to be paid to discharge debt due to Anantharajaiah. The finding of the Courts below is that the debt items (b) and (c) were not discharged by the mortgagee, and therefore that the mortgage is supported by consideration only to the extent of Rs. 100. Ext. P26 is a registration copy of the mortgage deed. Under the terms of the mortgage the mortgagee undertook to pay the revenue due from the Vrithi lands. On 23-5-1918 the vrithies were partitioned and the. suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of Laxmipathi the mortgagor. On 24th July 1925 the mortgage effected a sub-mortgage in favour of one Venkataramana Setty, uncle of defendats 1 and 10. There was a partition in the sub-mortgagee's family under which the mortgage properties were allotted to defendants 8 and 10. Laxmipathi died, leaving defendants 12 and 13 aa his hears. Defendants 12 and 13 conveyed their right in the equity of redemption to the plaintiff for a, consideration of Rs. 400 on 2-7-1952. ( 2 ) NEITHER the mortgagee nor sub-mortgagee pajd the revenue to the government from the Vrithi lands and therefore there was a revenue sale of the lands under which the suit property was purchased by one K. Venkataramana Setty. The sale was confirmed on 16th August 1937. On 2nd September 1940 the purchaser K. Venkataramana Setty sold his right to the family of defendant 9. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 6, 12 and 13 remained ex parte. The name of 7th defendant was deleted. Defendant 9 was the contesting defendant. He contended, inter alia, that there is no subsisting mortgage and that the suit is barred by limitation. ( 4 ) THE trial Court overruled all the objections of defendant 9 and decreed the suit. That decree was affirmed on appeal in RA. The name of 7th defendant was deleted. Defendant 9 was the contesting defendant. He contended, inter alia, that there is no subsisting mortgage and that the suit is barred by limitation. ( 4 ) THE trial Court overruled all the objections of defendant 9 and decreed the suit. That decree was affirmed on appeal in RA. No. 8 of 1969 by the Court of the Civil Judge, Mandya, and it is against the said judgment and decree that the above second appeal ha,s been preferred. ( 5 ) THE main question that arises in this second appeal is, whether the right of the mortgagor which has come to the plaintiff has been extinguished by reason of the revenue sale held on 7th May 1936 which, as earlier stated, was confirmed on 10th August 1937. The argument of Sri Iyer for -the appellant was that the right of the mortgagor has been extinguished by reason of the revenue sale. Sri Babu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in kalappa v. Shivaya, ILR. 20 Bom. 492, submitted that there is an exception to the rule that a revenue sale gives a title against all the world and that exception is that where the property is put in the possession of a mortgagee and under the mortgage deed there is an obligation on the part of the mortgage to pay the arrears of revenue and if the mortgagee fails to discharge that obligation the mortgagor's right is not lost. This is what Sargent, cr. stated in Kalappa's case, ILR. 20 Bom. 492. "the District Judge says that the mortgagee was bound to preserve the property from forfeiture or sale for arrears of revenue. If this were so, the sale would have been the result of the mortgage's default, and the plaintiff would not lose his right to redeem. This was decided in Sambhu Bin Anaji v. Babaji Bin Ravelu (P. J. 1b89, p. 160) and is in accordance with the judgment of the Privy Council in Nawab sidhee Nuzur Ally Khan v. Rajah Ojoodhyaram Khan (10 Moore's i. A. p. 540 at p. 559) where the right of the mortgagor to redeem is put on the ground that the mortgagee could not take advantage of his own wrong. It is an exception to the general rule that a Government sale for arrears of revenue gives a title against all the world. " mr. Iyer has not been able to point out any decision taking a contrary view I am entirely in agreement with the learned Chief Justice, and in that view the contention urged on behalf of the appellant is rejected. ( 6 ) THE second ground urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that fine suit for redemption is barred>y limitation. There is absolutely no substance in the contention as the suit for redemption has been brought within 60 years of the date of the mortgage, which is the period of limitation for redemption of a mortgage with possession. ( 7 ) NO other contentions were urged. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .