MALLIREDDI AYYAREDDI Vs. ADUSUMILLI GOPALKRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain Indian landowners within the district of Masulipatam effected first, second and third mortgages on their property; the first and third being on the lands alone, the second on the crops also. They were afterwards sued to judgment by some creditors for ordinary debts, and their lands were sold in execution of the judgment but subject to the mortgages. The purchaser of the equity of redemption was one Pingala, who paid rupees 1,000, and thereout the judgment debt was satisfied.

(2.) The second mortgagee then instituted his suit to enforce his mortgage, making the original mortgagors the third mortgagee and Piugala defendants; and having obtained judgment, he from time to time obtained orders for sale of the crops. In one case it would seem as if the crops were actually sold in execution; in others. Pingala, or the present respondents who bought Pingala's interests during the course of the proceedings, paid the second mortgagee sums of money and saved the crops from seizure. While this was going on, the third mortgagee, who is the present appellant, brought a suit, making the original mortgagors and Pingala parties; and in this suit the lands were sold out and out, freed and discharged from the mortgages. After payment of the amount due to the first mortgagee and the expenses of the sale and so forth, there remained in Court to the credit of the cause a sum of rupees 1,327 with some annas and pies.

(3.) The respondents, the purchasers from Pingala, who had been added as supplemental defendants in the suit brought by the appellant, thereupon claimed to be subrogated to the second mortgagee, and in right of the latter, to receive this sum out of Court. They made this claim on July 22, 1918, for the following reasons: At the time of the decree in favour of the third mortgagee which was made on appeal by the High Court on February 13, 1917, there was still due to the second mortgagee the sum of rupees 1,990. Now the decree of the High Court provided that Pingala or his assignees should be at liberty to pay the amount due under the decree obtained by the second mortgagee, and that by doing so, they would be relegated to the rights of that mortgagee. Accordingly the respondents paid rupees 1,990 to the second mortgagee, and on December 20, 1917, full satisfaction by payment through the Court was recorded.