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 the coparcenary. On the 10th June, 1930, under Exhibit P-1 a third mortgage was created on the properties in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 5,000 borrowed on that date and this document was executed by Govinda Bhatta for himself and on behalf of his minor son and Vishnu Bhatta also for himself and on behalf of his minor son. In 1931, there was a partition of the family properties between Govinda Bhatta’s branch and Vishnu Bhatta’s branch whereunder in consideration of Govinda Bhatta’s branch discharging the family debts, it was allotted a larger share in the family properties while Vishnu Bhatta’s branch obtained a smaller share. This partition arrangement is evidenced by Exhibit P-13 dated the 29th August, 1931. It contains a covenant between the two branches inter se by which Govinda Bhatta and his branch undertook to free the property allotted to Vishnu Bhatta and his branch from all debts and also a maintenance claim. The relevant clause in the deed is in these terms:

“As all the debts we have got as well as the maintenance have been allotted to the first individual among us (Govinda Bhatta), as, in so far as those debts are concerned, the property also has been allotted to him in excess, and also, as the property allotted to the second individual (Vishnu Bhatta) has been freed by us from all debts, all the said debts and their interest and also the maintenance should be paid by the said first individual only with liability of the property belonging to his share and receipt should be obtained. If, in that matter, payment is not made, and consequently, in respect of the said debts, the second individual incurs loss, the said first individual shall be bound to pay such entire losses together with interest thereon at 6¼ per cent. with liability of the property belonging to his share, with liability of the income therefrom and also upon his personal liability”.

The usufructuary mortgage under Exhibit D-3 was for a period of 30 years to the end of the cultivation season of Vishu Sankramana of the year 1940. To raise the money for discharging the usufructuary mortgage, Govinda Bhatta and his son, who by then became a major and also on behalf of the minor sons of Govinda Bhatta executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 14,000 on 7th May 1943, Exhibit D-2, in favour of defendants 8 and 9 with a covenant that the mortgagees under Exhibit D-2 should be entitled to the benefit of, and be subrogated to, the rights of the mortgagee under Exhibit D-3. After this mortgage, the mortgagees under Exhibit D-2 instituted O.S.No. 29 of 1944, Sub-Court, South Kanara for redemption of Exhibit D-3 and for recovering possession of the properties and obtained a decree for redemption. The amount was paid and the mortgage was fully satisfied and redeemed. The properties allott