SUBRAMANIA PILLAI Vs. PALANIAPPA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question argued in this appeal is whether the District Judge is correct in refusing to allow the plaintiffs the tight of subrogation in respect of sums admittedly expended by them in discharge of two mortgage decrees (O.S. Nos. 841 of 1900 and 178 of 1902 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Namakkal) enforceable against the suit properties.

(2.) The facts areas follows: The plaintiff s father was the vendee of the suit lands under a sale deed, Exhibit B, dated the 14th December 1904 for Rs. 1500, of this sum Rs. 870 was represented by the discharge of a mortgage decree held by the plaintiff s father himself against the property. In respect of this, the Judge has allowed the plaintiffs claim. The balance was to be applied; and, admittedly, was in fact applied, in discharge of the two decrees above mentioned, based on mortgages of the said property. Exhibit B was executed during the pendency of a suit O.S. No. 1092 of (1904) brought by the 5th defendant, Kali Mudali, on a fourth mortgage; and on this ground, it was held to be invalid against Kali Mudali (vide Exhibit H judgment in O.S. No. 358 of 1906 on the same Munsif s file confirmed in appeal). The present contesting Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, are parties who purchased the property in execution of Kali Mudali s decree.

(3.) The plaintiffs rights as purchasers having thus disappeared, they claim to be subrogated in respect of the prior mortgages on the property discharged by them.