Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is obvious that the position of an equitable assignee cannot be better than the position of an assignee at law. A puisne mortgagee is, therefore, bound to enforce the mortgage within the period of limitation applicable to the original mortgage bond. As the Privy Council pointed out in 'Prannath Roy v. Rookea Begum', 7 Moo Ind App 323 (353) (PC) (J) "A cause of action is not prolonged by mere transfer of the title".

In other words, the mere circumstance that a particular right has changed hands by formal or equitable assignment does not operate to cause a fresh period of limitation to run, but limitation runs in the same way as though the original mortgagee (i.e. the assignor) had been the plaintiff, namely, from the date when the money sued for became due under the mortgage.

The doctrine of subrogation is based on the fiction that the mortgage that is paid off is not extinguished but there is an equitable assignment of the mortgage in favour of the subrogee. There is a notional assignment of the mortgage, but it is not correct to say that there is a notional assignment of the mortgage decree. There is high authority for the proposition that the second mortgagee does not substitute himself in the mortgage decree and does not obtain the status of a decree-holder but is merely an equitable assignee of the charge of the original mortgage.