Satyanarayana Rao, J.-This appeal raises an interesting and intricate question of law relating to subrogation. The case was ably argued on both sides and the problem raised is bare of authority. The right of defendants 8, 9 and 11 who are the appellants, to subrogation in respect of two earlier mortgages, was denied by the lower Court and hence this appeal.

On the 20th May, 1910, one Krishna Bhatta and his two sons, Venkatesa Bhatta and Govinda Bhatta borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 and created a usufructuary mortgage as security on the properties described in the deed of mortgage, Exhibit D-3. This mortgage was in favour of Madanna Bhatta and Subbanna Bhatta. On the 10th April, 1926, Govinda Bhatta for himself and on behalf of his minor son Ganapathi Bhatta and Vishnu Bhatta, the younger brother of Govinda Bhatta, Krishna Bhatta and Venkatesa Bhatta having died meanwhile, borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000 from one Atchuta Bhatta and created a simple mortgage for the amount under Exhibit D-11. The family of Krishna Bhatta and his sons was undivided and at the time of Exhibit D-11, Govinda Bhatta and Vishnu Bhatta and Govinda Bhatta’s minor son, were the sole surviving members of t