The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, J.-This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Patanjali Sastri, J., and it raises a question of subrogation.

On 6th August, 1924, one Jagandhara, the husband of the seventh defendant executed a mortgage deed Ex. D-1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in respect of item 4 of Schedule D annexed to the plaint for a sum of Rs. 1,000. On 6th September, 1924, he executed another mortgage deed Ex. P-1 in favour of defendants 4 and 5 in regard to items 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 750. He again mortgaged items 1, 3 and 4 to defendants 2 and 3 under Ex. D-2 dated 29th June, 1930, for a sum of Rs. 500. On nth July, 1930, he. borrowed another sum of Rs. 1,670 and executed a mortgage deed Ex. P-2 mortgaging items 1 to 5. On 9th September, 1933, by Ex. D-10, defendants 2 and 3 transferred their interest under Ex D-1 to the sixth defendant. Under Ex. D-11, dated 7th October, 1933, Jagandhara’s wife Mahalakshmi, being minor represented by her father, executed a sale deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 2,500 conveying to them item 4 of the plaint B Schedule. The consideration for that sale deed was made up of three items:

(1) Rs. 1,710 due under the mortgage deed Ex. D-1 which was assigned in favour of the sixth defendant. The vendees undertook to pay this amount.

(2) The amount of principal and interest due under Ex. D-2 executed by the vendor’s husband Jagandhara m favour of the vendees, i.e., defendants 2 and 3.

(3) Rs. 126-14-0, the amount received in cash. On 31st March, 1934, defendants 2 and 3 filed a statement in E.P.No 788 of 1933 wherein they admitted that Ex. D-2 was discharged and the property was not subject to the mortgage. On 29th August, 1938, defendants 2 and 3 paid to the sixth defendant the sum due under Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-1(a) is the endorsement acknowledging the said payment. In execution of a simple money decree against the mortgagors, items 1, 2 and 5 were brought to sale and were purchased by defendant 3 on 2nd November, 1934, who, in his turn, sold those properties under Ex. D-7 dated 10th September, 1938, to the first defendant. The plaintiff is the assignee of the mortgage rights under Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. He instituted O.S. No. 27 of 1942 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam to enforce the two mortgages assigned in his favour. Defendants 2 and 3 who became the owners of item 4 claimed to be subrogated to the rights under the prior mortgage Ex. D-1 which they discharged. The first defendant claimed in respect of item 1 the right to fall back upon the prior mortgage Ex. D-2 as against Ex. P-2 as his vendor, the third defendant, who was the mortgagee of items 1, 3 and 4 under Ex. D-2 purchased that item along with items 2 and 5 in the Court sale of November 1934. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the claims of priority set up by defendants 1, 2 and 3; but the learned District Judge in appeal allowed the two claims The plaintiff preferred S.A. No. 759 of 1945 against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge. Patanjali Sastri, J., agreed with the learned Subordinate Judge and set aside the decree of the District Judge. With the leave of the learned Judge the defendants whose claims to priority were rejected, prefer this Letters Patent Appeal.

Mr. Narasaraju, learned counsel for the appellants accepted the conclusion of the learned Judge in regard to item 1 of B Schedule and confined his arguments only to item 4 of the plaint B Schedule. He contended that defendants 2 and 3 being the puisne mortgagees of item 4 before they purchased the said item under Ex. D-11 had a pre-existing interest in the mortgaged property, and therefore were entitled to be subrogated under the first paragraph of section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act. The question raised in this appeal depends upon the construction to be put on sections 91 and 92 of the Transfer of Property Act The material provisions of the said sections read:

"91