https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460369 The court held that the execution sale by the first mortgagee did not extinguish the second mortgage, as the property was purchased by the mortgagor himself, who cannot use his default to harm subsequent creditors. The second mortgagee's rights remain intact. Additionally, the court determined that the appellant, claiming an adverse title, was a proper party to the mortgage suit. The appellant's claim was based on a transaction subsequent to the mortgage, and thus his inclusion in the suit was appropriate to resolve issues affecting the mortgage's enforceability. en-us Wed, 12 Dec 1906 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:44:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460369 The court held that the execution sale by the first mortgagee did not extinguish the second mortgage, as the property was purchased by the mortgagor himself, who cannot use his default to harm subsequent creditors. The second mortgagee's rights remain intact. Additionally, the court determined that the appellant, claiming an adverse title, was a proper party to the mortgage suit. The appellant's claim was based on a transaction subsequent to the mortgage, and thus his inclusion in the suit was appropriate to resolve issues affecting the mortgage's enforceability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Dec 1906 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460369