Wallace, J.

1. I agree generally with the judgment just read by my learned brother. I only wish to add some remarks chiefly with reference to my judgment in Parvati Ammal v. Venkatarama Aiyar A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 80 In that judgment I have dealt with most of the cases which have been cited before us. It has been strongly and with reason relied upon by the appellant in this case, but has also been quoted in support of a view which has never been expressed therein, though I must now concede that the main position which I took up there requires reconsideration. In that case the question arose of the rights of a puisne mortgagee who had paid up an execution sale amount for which the property had been brought to sale on a prior mortgagees decree. The proposition for decision in that case I state at p. 318:

The point for decision is whether, when she paid it off, she is to be subrogated to it (the charge which she paid off), in its original form as a mortgage charge, or to it in the form into which it had developed, namely, the right to sell the property in discharge of the mortgage decree. I think the latter view is the correct one.

2. Then at page 319,I went on to say that since the