JUDGMENT

1. The circumstances which have given rise to this second appeal are briefly as follows :On the 19th January 1892 and the 27th March 1899 one Pir Bakhsh executed two mortgage deeds in favour of Ram Chand, the total principal amount secured by the mortgages being Rs. 199. In August 1899 Pir Bakhsh mortgaged the same property to George Alfred the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff for Rs. 400 and in pursuance of the terms of the mortgage the mortgagee obtained possession of the property. In April 1902 Ram Chand obtained a decree on the strength of his mortgage for the recovery of Rs. 223 and also for costs which amounted to Rs. 12-4-0 to be recovered by the sale of the mortgaged property. In order to preserve the property from sale in execution of that decree the puisne mortgagee paid the entire amount due to Ram Chand and the only question for determination is whether he is entitled to add the said amount to the principal money advanced by him and to ask the mortgagor to pay him before redemption not only the money due on his own mortgage but also this amount with interest at the rate of nine per cent par annum.

2. Now Section 72 of the Transfer of Property Act lays down that a mortgagee in possession may spend such money as is necessary for the preservation of the property from sale, and it has been held in several cases that payments made in satisfaction of a decree on a prior mortgage fall within the purview of that section. The learned Vakil for the respondents does not dispute the proposition that the present case falls within the ambit of the aforesaid section, but contents himself with the contention that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable to the Punjab. The rule embodied in the section proceeds upon an equitable principle, and it has been repeatedly held that the general principles contained in the Transfer of Property Act are applicable to cases arising in the Punjab.

3. Accordingly, we hold that the plaintiff is entitled not only to Rs. 400, due on the footing of his own mortgage, but also to Rs. 235-4-0 paid by him to Ram Chand with interest thereon at nine per cent per annum from the date of the payment by him to Ram Chand up to the date when the mortgagor's representative satisfies his claim. We, therefore, accept the appeal to this extent and also direct the defendant Karim Bakhsh to pay half the costs incurred by the plaintiff throughout the litigation.