Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Krishnan, J. I shall briefly state the facts before discussing the question of law that arises. Perumal was the owner of the property and he mortgaged it to the defendant. It was then an unenfranchised inam. In execution of a money decree obtained against Perumal the property was subsequently sold in Court auction. Even then it was an unenfranchised inam. The plaintiffs vendor became the purchaser at the Court sale.

2. This suit has been instituted to redeem the mortgage in favour of the defendant. The defence is that the sale conveys to the plaintiff no title, the property having been inalienable. The defendant has had to concede that on this hypothesis the mortgage in his favour is also invalid. He, however, relies upon a sale made to him of the property by Perumal subsequent to the enfranchisement of the property.

3. These facts cannot be disputed : first, the property was inalienable on the date of the Court sale and consequently no valid title passed to the plaintiff ; secondly, by reason of the subsequent enfranchisement, Perumal acquired a right which could be transferred and the defendant, hay