C.S. Ramier vs B.N. Srinivasiah on 18 September, 1940
Both the decisions relied on by the respondent's counsel dealt with cases where the mortgagors were non-agriculturists. That being so there was no question of a non-agriculturist purchaser getting the benefit of the Act in the right of the mortgagor by the application of the principle of the unity and indivisibility of the mortgage, because (ex-concession) the mortgagor was himself a non-agriculturist and could consequently have no relief under the Act. The problem that arose in those cases was merely whether, when one of two persons holding a derivative interest in the mortgaged property is an agriculturist and the other is not, the right of the former against the mortgagee could be given effect to without jeopardising the right of the mortgagee against the latter, assuming of course that the mortgagor is not an agriculturist. It was held that the two rights could be so worked. Where, however, the mortgagor-judgment-debtor is an agriculturist the principle of the unity and indivisibility of the mortgage comes into play and the purchaser-judgment-debtor though a non-agriculturist gets the benefit of the scaling down effected at the instance of the former. This brings us to the distinction which Mr. Kesva Iyengar suggests between the present case and the cases relied on for the appellant. He argues that the principle laid down in those cases is applicable only to a non-agriculturist purchaser who seeks indirectly the benefit of a scaling down ordered in favour of an agriculturist mortgagor and that the principle cannot be invoked in the present case because the 1st defendant is not a purchaser but is a co-mortgagor with defendants 2 to 7.