DADI APPALA NAIDU Vs. KOLLURU BHIMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of Patanjali Sastri J. and it raises a question of subrogation.

(2.) ON 6th August 1924, one Jagandhara, the husband of defendant 7, executed a mortgage deed Ex. D-1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in respect of item 4 of Sch. B annexed to the plaint for a sum of Rs. 1000. On 6th September 1924 he executed another mortgage deed, Ex. P 1, in favour of defendants 4 and 5 in regard to items 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 750. He again mortgaged items 1, 3 and 4 to defendants 2 and 3 under Ex. D -2 dated 29th June 1930 for a sum of Rs. 500. On 11th July 1930 he borrowed another sum of Rs. 1670 and executed a mortgage deed, Ex. P-2, mortgaging items 1 to 5, On 9th September 1933 by Ex. D-10, defendants 2 and 3 transferred their interest under Ex. D -l to defendant 6. Under Ex. D-11, dated 7th October 1933, Jagandhara's wife Mahalakshmi, being minor represented by her father, executed a sale-deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 2500 conveying to them item 4 of the plaint B schedule. The consideration for that sale-deed was made up of three items :

(3.) MR . Narasaraju, learned counsel for the appellants accepted the conclusion of the learned Judge in regard to item 1 of the B schedule and confined his arguments only to item 4 of the plaint B schedule. He contended that defendants 2 and 3 being the puisne mortgagees of item 4 before they purchased the said item under Ex. D-11, had a pre-existing interest in the mortgaged property, and therefore were entitled to be subrogated under para. 1 of Section 92, T. P. Act. The question raised in this appeal depends upon the construction to be put on Sections 91 and 92, T. P. Act. The material provisions of the said sections read : '91. Besides the mortgagor, any of the following persons may redeem, or institute a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property, namely: