9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (8) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Courts below were right in holding that defendants 8 to 10 had acquired the rights of a prior mortgagee of the year 1919 and were entitled to hold up that mortgage as a shield against the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. The facts are as follows: 2. One Muqaddam mortgaged his property; in the year 1913 by means of a deed of simple mortgage to one Murlidhar. He. again mortgaged the same property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar). Murlidhar had not impleaded the present plaintiff in the suit for sale brought by him and the present plaintiff therefore was not debarred from putting his mortgage into suit. 3. Babu Ram died before the suit giving rise to the present appeal was filed and the plaintiff impleaded amongst other defendants 8 to 10, the successors-in-interest of Babu Ram, on the allegation that they were subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right of subrogation was not acquired by Babu Earn. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the last paragraph of Section 92, T.P. Act which provides that: Nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer a right of subrogation on any person unless the mortgage in respect of which the right is claimed has been redeemed in full. 4. The argument is that in order to acquire the right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y those Courts. There is however the fact that the son of Murlidhar came in the witness-box and testified to the fact that his decree' had been discharged. The mortgage of Murlidhar was therefore redeemed in full and defendants 8 to 10 were subrogated to the right that Murlidhar had on the basis of the mortgage of 1913. The decrees of the Courts below are therefore perfectly correct and accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
