ORDER: 1. The petitioners have filed the above revision aggrieved against the order passed by the executing court in E.P.No.121 of 1985 in O.S.No.123 of 1967, dated 28.11.1990, rejecting the execution petition. 2. The property in question belonged to the plaintiffs tarward. On 28.6.1904 the plaintiff tarward executed a mortgage deed in favour of one Nallathambi. The mortgage and “purakadam” rights devolved on the defendants and they are in possession of the said property as mortgagees. So, the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.122 of 1967 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil to redeem the mortgage. The learned District Munsif had decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem item Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants 1, 2 and 5 filed appeal in A.S.No.172 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nagercoil. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 14.11.1967. Thereafter, I.A.No.864 of 1971 was filed by the plaintiffs for passing final decree for redemption of the property. The defendants filed a counter objecting the same. On 29.6.1974 the trial court directed the plaintiffs to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,052 for which the defendants are entitled, and passed the final decree accordingly. After obtaining the final decree, the second plaintiff took execution proceedings by filing E.P.No.121 of 1985. The other plaintiffs did not object the same. The defendants filed objections. Meanwhile, the fourth plaintiff sold his 2/5 share in the property in favour of the second defendant's wife on 27.12.1974. The first plaintiff sold his 1/5 share in favour of the 5th defendant under the sale deed dated 9.1.1975. On 4.2.1984, the third plaintiff deposited the value of improvements in court. 3. The executing court accepting the case of the defendants rejected the execution petition on the ground that except the third plaintiff, the other plaintiffs are not having any right or interest in the property and so the execution petition filed by the third plaintiff cannot be construed as for the benefit of the other decree holders. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above revision. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above revision. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners had obtained a decree and on the basis of the subsequent purchase the defendants cannot be allowed to resist the execution petition, as the third plaintiff is entitled to execute the decree under O.21 , Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has also further submitted that though the 5th defendant purchased the 1/5 share in the property from the first plaintiff and the second defendant's wife purchased 2/5 share of the fourth plaintiff, they have not obtained any assignment of the decree as contemplated under O.21 , Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has submitted that the first petitioner is having only l/5th share in the property, the other namely, the 5th defendant, and the 2/5th share also had been purchased by the wife of the second defendant. According to him, in view of the fact that the possession of the property by the parties both as mortgagees and also purchasers of the major portion of the property, the execution proceedings cannot be said to be beneficial to the other co-owners, namely, the 5th defendant and the wife of the second defendant, and so the plaintiffs/petitioners cannot maintain the execution petition under O.21 , Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The first petitioner, admittedly, is the owner of the 1 /5th share in the property in question, on the basis of the final decree obtained in I.A.No.864 of 1971; he filed the execution petition, taking advantage of the provisions of O.21 , Rule 15 of the Code. O.21 , Rule 15 of the Code reads as follows: (1) “Where a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one, any one or more of such persons may, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, apply for the execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all, or, where any of them has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives of the deceased. (2) Where the court sees sufficient cause for allowing the decree to be executed on an application made under this Rule, it shall make such order as it deems necessary for protecting the interests of the persons who have not joined in the application.” So, any one of the decree holders can execute the whole decree for the benefit of other decree holders. In the present case, the other decree holders had sold their shares, in favour of one of the mortgagees, the 5th defendant and the wife of another mortgagee, the second defendent. The second and fifth defendants, admittedly, are in possession of the property as mortgagees, so, it cannot be said that it is beneficial to the other plaintiffs. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that the purchasers of the shares of the plaintiffs 1 and 4 cannot be construed as decree-holders, as they have not obtained any assignment of the decree. In the absence of any such assignment, the said purchasers cannot prevent the petitioners, from executing the decree. Such a submission cannot be accepted. The execution of a joint decree can be done only under O.21 , Rule 15 of the Code. Since the other plaintiffs parted with their rights in favour of one of the mortgagees, and the wife of the other mortgagee, the execution of the whole decree as sought for cannot be said to be beneficial to the other decree-holders. 7. In the present case some of the decree holders’ right and the defendants’ obligation got united as one. So, the question is whether there has been such a merger in the case as to render the entire decree in executable. Sec.60 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that “noting in this section shall entitle a person interested in a share only of the mortgaged property to redeem his own share only, on payment of a proportionate part of the amount remaining due on the mortgage, except only where a mortgagee or, if there are more mortgagees than one, all such mortgagees, has or have acquired, in whole or in part, the share of a mortgagor” In the present case there are more than one mortgagees. But, one of them has acquired the share of the mortgagor. But, one of them has acquired the share of the mortgagor. In view of the above, the indivisible character of the mortgage was broken and the mortgagor could not claim redemption of the share of other co-sharers in which he was not interested. 8. While considering similar issue in Mamu v. Kuttu , (1883) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 6 the learned Judges have held as follows: “First defendant, the appellant in this second appeal, represents the original mortgagee from whom he obtained an assignment. He is also in possession of the entire mortgaged property which it is sought to redeem. Further, by his purchase of the rights of the husband of the deceased Parichi, the sister of plaintiff and mother of the minor sixth defendant, he has a share in the equity of redemption. To allow plaintiff to redeem the whole would enable him to get possession of the property to the exclusion of fifth defendant. Now, as fifth defendant is already in possession as assignee of the mortgagee and has also a share in the “right to redeem” he cannot be required to surrender possession of the whole against his consent until plaintiff has, by a proper suit for partition, ascertained, definitely to what shares in the property he and fifth defendant are respectively entitled.” The above said decision was also followed in Thillai Chetti v. Ramanatha Ayyan , (1897) I.L.R. 20 Mad. 295. 9. In the decision in Ratna Mudali v. Perumal Reddy Ratna Mudali v. Perumal Reddy Ratna Mudali v. Perumal Reddy , (1915) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 310 the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “Therefore, it seems to me that against the will of the mortgagee and of the fourth defendant who has obtained half the mortgagee's interest by paying half the mortgage money to the mortgagee and half share in the equity of redemption by purchase of same from two out of four owners of the equity of redemption, the plaintiffs cannot claim to redeem more than plaintiffs half share of the mortgaged properties. As I said before I hold this view following Kuray Mal v. Puran Mal Kuray Mal v. Puran Mal Kuray Mal v. Puran Mal , (1879) I.L.R. 2 All. 565, Munshi and Nawab Asidut All Khan v. Jowahir Singh Nawab Asidut All Khan v. Jowahir Singh Nawab Asidut All Khan v. Jowahir Singh , (1870) 13 M.I.A. 404. As I said before I hold this view following Kuray Mal v. Puran Mal Kuray Mal v. Puran Mal Kuray Mal v. Puran Mal , (1879) I.L.R. 2 All. 565, Munshi and Nawab Asidut All Khan v. Jowahir Singh Nawab Asidut All Khan v. Jowahir Singh Nawab Asidut All Khan v. Jowahir Singh , (1870) 13 M.I.A. 404. …… I hold generally that against the mortgagee's consent the owner of a definite share of the equity of redemption should not be entitled to redeem more than his share unless the owners of the other shares consent, or do not object to plaintiffs redeeming their shares also. The very general words of Sec.91 of the Transfer of Property Act’ any person having any interest in or charge on a property can institute a suit for the redemption of the mortgaged property’, cannot be construed to mean that a plaintiff who owned only a fractional share can redeem other shares than his own when the owner of these other shares object to redeeming their fractions, or contend that their shares have already been redeemed by them.” 10. Where the equity of redemption in respect of part of the mortgaged property becomes vested in the mortgage there is a merger of rights and the integrity of mortgage is broken up by reason of the right of redemption and the right of mortgagee passing to the same person. Since the mortgage has been broken up in view of the fact that the mortgagee acquires some right in the property, the petitioners are entitled to redeem their interest on payment of proportionate part of the mortgage debt. The same could be done only symbolically. 11. The order of the lower court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the executing court with a direction to execute the decree with respect to l/5th share of the petitioners by redeeming the same and record the delivery of possession symbolically with respect to his share. The actual possession of the specific property can be taken by the petitioners only by filing a suit or partition, as the fifth defendant-mortgagee and the wife of the second defendant had acquired major shares of the property and are in possession of the same. Their possession of the property will be only as co-owners. The abovesaid direction will safeguard the interest of both the parties. 12. Their possession of the property will be only as co-owners. The abovesaid direction will safeguard the interest of both the parties. 12. With the above direction, the revision, is partly allowed, No costs. Petition partly allowed.