Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

I agree with the contentions of the plaintiff's learned Counsel that in the case of transfer all the rights and title of the transferee whether patent or latent is transferred.

30. In the result, the appellant was given a decree for Rs. 13,547-6-6 together with interest amounting to Rs. 18,873-5-9 with proportionate costs against defendant No. 4.

31. Shortly stated, it is clear from what has been said above that the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that though the property mortgaged under the deed belonged to the idol and not to the mortgagors, it could be proceeded against under the suit mortgage because (1) the appellant by discharging the mortgage debt by his loan had subrogated himself to the rights of the decree-holder in Suit No. 141 of 1919 in which he had obtained a decree for the sale of the suit property; and (2) under Clause 5, read presumably with his finding that respondent No. 1 was the de facto manager, the rights of the idol in the property had been validly mortgaged by him by mortgaging all rights and interest which he held, which would include the title to the property vested in him as trustee of the idol also. In support of ground No. 1 the learned Subordinate Judge relied on the equitable doctrine of subrogation enunciated in the well-known decision of Butter v. Rice [1910] 2 Ch. 277.

Their Lordships consider this to be a correct statement of the law applicable in England and that the same doctrine applies in India also [see Abdul Gofur Mandal v. Umakanta Pandit (1914) 19 C.W.N. 260]. For these reasons, the mortgage deed is not binding on the trust estate.

38. Their Lordships will now proceed to consider whether the appellant is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the decree-holder in Suit No. 141 of 1919, on the broad ground that the debt binding on the suit property having been paid off with his money, it became liable for the said amount. The doctrine of subrogation is in essence a simple matter. It means the substitution of one creditor for another. The law of subrogation in India is contained in Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act. This section is new and was inserted by Section 47 of Act XX of 1929. By Section 39 of the amending Act, Sections 74 and 75 of the Transfer of Property Act which contained only in an imperfect form the law of subrogation were repealed. The new section deals with the rights of subrogation of two different classes of persons.

A person who has advanced to a mortgagor money with which the mortgage has been redeemed shall be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee whose mortgage has been redeemed, if the mortgagor has by a registered instrument agreed that such persona shall be so subrogated.

41. The right mentioned above, referred to usually as "conventional or contractual" subrogation, is founded upon the principle of an agreement between a borrower and a lender, that the lender shall be subrogated to the rights of the original creditor.

43. Turning now to the law as it was in 1926, Sir Thomas Strangman rested his case upon the equitable doctrine of subrogation enunciated in Butler v. Rice [1910] 2 Ch. 277. In that case, a husband obtained money on the property of his wife to pay off a mortgage debt binding on her property without her knowledge and authority, and relief was given to the creditor, a mere stranger, who had no interest in the property, on the principle of subrogation. This decision would seem to support the view that a mere volunteer who discharges a mortgage debt binding on the property, as in the present case, could claim to be subrogated to the rights of the creditor on the mortgaged property for the amount paid by him. Whatever force such a doctrine may possess in England, the Board has negatived such a plea as regards India-see Ram Tuhul Singh v. Biseswar Lall Sahoo (1875) L.R 2 I.A. 131. Even before the amendment of the Act, to support a claim to subrogation by one who has lent money to a mortgagor to redeem a mortgage, an agreement express or implied that the lender shall be subrogated to the rights of the creditor was necessary to be proved. In this connection reference may be made to the Board's decision in Raja Janaki Nath Roy v. Raja Pramatha Nath Malia (1939) L.R. 67 I.A. 82 : S.C. 42 Bom. L.R. 339 where in considering what was the law as to "partial subrogation" before the Act was amended by Act XX of 1929, Lord Romer who delivered the judgment of the Board observed as follows (p. 99):