Satyanarayana Rao, J.†-Two questions have been referred to the Full Bench viz., (i) Whether section 96 of the Transfer of Property Act is retrospective or not and (ii) Whether Munia Goundan v. Ramaswami Chetti1, and Sinnanan Chetty v. Sivakami Ammal2, were rightly decided.

After hearing arguments, we have no doubts about the second question referred to the Full Bench, but the first question, in our opinion, having regard to the conflicting views expressed in different Courts, requires consideration by a fuller Bench. Section 95 of the Transfer of Property Act introduced by amending Art XX of 1929 replaces to some extent the old section 95. Part of old section 95 with modification has been transferred to section 92 first part, i.e., instead of a charge in favour of the redeeming co-mortgagor. Section 92 substitutes in its place a right of subrogation and the redeeming co-mortgagor holds the property subject to the same rights of redemption, foreclosure or sale as the mortgagee, whose mortgage he redeems, may have against the mortgagor or any other mortgagee. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Srinivasulu v. Damodaraswami3, that this section is not retrospective and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document