The judgment establishes that subrogation rights cannot be claimed without a statutory basis or a valid ground under conventional subrogation or equitable principles.

Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. This is a second appeal preferred by defendant 1 (on whose death during the pendency of this appeal, his legal representative was added as appellant 2) and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent 1 for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due under Ex. B, a registered mortgage-deed dated 20th May 1912 and executed by defendant 2s late husband Kuppuswami Naidu in favour of defendant 3 for Rs. 790. Both the lower Courts have given a decree in plaintiffs favour for the recovery of the amount claimed by sale of the mortgaged properties.

2. In order to show how this plaintiff sues to recover the sum due under the mortgage-deed Ex. B, which was executed not in his favour, but in favour of defendant 3, the plaint alleges that after the death of the mortgagor (Kuppuswami Naidu), his widow, defendant 2, sold the suit properties to plaintiff under the sale deed dated 7th July 1920 (Ex. A) for Rs. 1,470 for the purpose of discharging the mortgage-debt due to defendant 3 under Ex. B, that the plaintiff and defendant 2 have paid the mortgage-amount to defendant 3, and that in these circumstances, the rights under the mortgage-deed Ex. B, have accrued to the plaintiff. It is further alleged in the plaint, that defendant 1, though he was aware of this mortgage, obtained a sale of the suit properties, and has been in enjoyment thereof, and that in any event, the suit properties are liable to the plaintiff as a charge for the amount of the prior mortgage under Ex. B discharged by him. Defendant 1 contended that the plaintiffs claim in this form is invalid and legally unsustainable, that when he (defendant 1) purchased the suit properties, Kuppuswami Naidu said the suit mortgage-debt had been discharged, that subsequent to his purchase the present plaintiff wilfully got another sale-deed executed, stating falsely that the mortgage-debt was not discharged and that he is not entitled to sue on the mortgage-bond in question.

3. The facts which may be taken to be beyond dispute may be briefly stated at the outset. The original owner of the suit properties was the late .Kuppuswami Naidu (the husband of defendant 2). He created two mortgages over them, the earlier under Ex. B in favour of defendant 3, and the later under Ex. 2 in favour of defendant. On 21st August 1918 he sold the properties to defendant under Ex. 3 for Rs. 1,000, in discharge of the mortgage-debt to defendant 1 under Ex. 2 and in consideration of the receipt of Rs. 25 in cash. This sale is an absolute one, and was found to be valid in the prior litigation : vide Exs. C and D. After the death of Kuppuswami Naidu, his widow (defendant 2) sold the same properties to the present plaintiff under the sale-deed Ex. A which is dated 7th July 1920. By the conveyance under Ex. 3 defendant 2s husband parted with his entire interest, and he had no right or interest whatever in the suit properties after that sale. Defendant 2, as his heir, had absolutely no right or interest in these properties, when she purported to sell them to the plaintiff under Ex. A. The sale under Ex. A is void and no interest in the suit properties passed to the plaintiff by this sale. The personal remedy under the mortgage-deed Ex. B was also clearly barred, when defendant executed the sale-deed to plaintiff. She had, no interest in the equity of redemption, nor was the personal remedy against her husband subsisting.

4. Having these facts in view, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff has established his claim to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee under Ex. B, by reason of the discharge of that debt with his (plaintiffs) money (the consideration for the sale to him under Ex. A). On the question whether Ex. B was already discharged by Kuppuswami Naidu himself, the finding of both the Courts below is in the negative. On the mere ground that Ex. B was discharged with the money paid by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge allowed the right of subrogation