KAVVI KONDAYYA Vs. KAVVI ATCHAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question that arises for consideration is one of subrogation. The two persons interested in the equity of redemption were Atchayamma and Appanna. The mortgagee filed O.S. No. 176 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Yellamanchili, for enforcement of his mortgage impleading only Appanna, and the lessee, the appellant herein. The lessee, who was interested in the first item, entered into a compromise with the mortgagee under which he agreed to pay Rs. 600. The compromise petition is marke4 as Exhibit P-3 and is in the following terms :-

(2.) Atchayamma filed O.S. No.32 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Yellamanchili, for a declaration that the compromise was not binding upon her, and that she was entitled to recover half of item I from the appellant herein. The suit was decreed. But the question as to whether the appellant herein was entitled to a right of subrogation was left open. The present suit was instituted to enforce the right of subrogation.

(3.) Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act is in the following terms :- "Any of the persons referred to in section 91 (other than the mortgagor) and any co-mortgagor shall, on redeeming property subject to the morrtgage, have, so far as regards redemption, foreclosure or sale of such property, the same rights as the mortgagee whose mortgage he redeems may have against the mortgagor or any other mortgagee.