Allsop, J.:— This second appeal arises out of a suit on the basis of a mortgage. One of the defendants, viz. defendant 7, was impleaded as a subsequent mortgagee. His defence was that he had been subrogated to the position of a prior mortgagee because he had redeemed a previous mortgage. The mortgage suit was executed on 23rd June ??? The mortgage in favour of defendant was executed on 24th January ??? There was a provision in that mortga that a certain sum of money was ??? with him to redeem a prior ??? dated 17th August 1915 in favour of ??? Bhagwat Das. Defendant 7 did ??? this mortgage and the Courts below ??? held that he was subrogated to the ??? of Bhagwat Das and have decided the case accordingly. The argument second appeal is that defendant 7 ??? not be subrogated to the position Bhagwat Das because under the provisions of para. 3 of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act there was no registered instrument ??? which the mortgagee agreed to such ??? rogation. It seems to us that there no force in this argument. Under Section 9 of the Transfer of Property Act, any person other than the mortgagee of the interest sought to be ??? who has any interest in or charge upon the property mortgaged has a right ??? redeem and a subsequent mortgage therefore has a right to redeem. Under para. 1 of S. 92, any of the person referred to in S. 91, other than the mortgagor, shall on redeeming property subject to the mortgage, have, so far as regards redemption, foreclosure or sale ??? such property, the same rights as ??? mortgagee whose mortgage he redeems may have against the mortgagor or any other mortgagee.
2. The result of this is that any sub-sequent mortgagee who redeems a prior mortgage has a right to be subrogated to the position of the prior mortgagee. Para. 3, Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act obviously refers to persons other than subsequent mortgagees who advance money to a mortgagor to enable him to redeem a mortgage.
3. It has been suggested that the case of defendant 7 can, be distinguished because the money for redeeming the mortgage was definitely left in his possession. We, cannot see that there is any distinction.
4. There is no force in this appeal and we dismiss it with costs.
B.D/R.K
5. Appeal dismissed.