Judgment :- 1. The 5th defendant is the appellant. The plaint property belonged to the first defendant. He executed a chitty security bond in respect of the property on 13.7.1103. Subsequently he hypothecated the property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a decree on the basis of that bond in O.S. No. 61 of 1110 of the Kanjirappilli Munsiff's Court. Under that decree the plaintiff was given a charge on the property subject to the prior charge under the chitty hypothecation bond. The property was subsequently sold for the decree debt in O.S. No. 443 of 1102 and purchased by one Sankara Pillai Narayana Pillai. He assigned his rights under the auction sale in favour of the 5th defendant. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed a petition under the Travancore Debt Relief Act D.R.P. No. 851 of 1116, for paying off the debt under the chitty hypothecation bond and deposited in court four instalments. After that the auction purchaser in O.S. No. 443 of 1102 paid off the balance amount due under the chitty hypothecation bond and also the amount due to the plaintiff under the decree in O.S. No. 61 of 1110. The present suit by the plaintiff is for recovery of the four instalments deposited by him towards the chitty hypothecation debt. The plaintiff also claimed a charge on the property for this amount. The 5th defendant contended that his vendor Sankara Pillai Narayana Pillai discharged the whole debt under the chitty hypothecation bond and that in any case the plaintiff is not entitled to a charge on the property. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a charge on the plaint property. In appeal filed by the plaintiff the District Court reversed this decree and gave the plaintiff a decree for the plaint amount charged on the plaint property. In this second appeal the 5th defendant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to a charge on the property. It was not seriously contended that the plaintiff did not pay the four instalments as alleged by him. Ext. A to D, copies of memos filed in court, show that the amounts had been deposited by the plaintiff. The 5th defendant has not adduced any evidence to show that his vendor Sankara Pillai Narayana Pillai paid the whole amount due under the chitty hypothecation bond. Ext. A to D, copies of memos filed in court, show that the amounts had been deposited by the plaintiff. The 5th defendant has not adduced any evidence to show that his vendor Sankara Pillai Narayana Pillai paid the whole amount due under the chitty hypothecation bond. Both the courts below have concurrently found this point in favour of the plaintiff. The question for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a charge on the property for this amount. 2. It was argued for the appellant that the plaintiff will be entitled to subrogation under S. 92 of the Transfer of Property Act only if he has redeemed the prior charge in full and that since the plaintiff has no case that he discharged the whole debt under the chitty hypothecation bond he cannot claim the benefit of S. 92. S. 92 contains the following provision: "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer a right of subrogation on any person unless the mortgage in respect of which the right is claimed has been redeemed in full." This provision only requires that the prior mortgage should have been redeemed in full. It does not say that the person who claims the charge should himself have redeemed the mortgage in full. This question came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court consisting of five judges in Hira Singh v. Jai Singh (AIR 1937 All. 588). Their Lordship observed thus in that case: "The last question raised in this case is whether the fact that there were three sets of vendees who made payments, the balance being paid by the mortgagor himself, would show that the requirements of paragraph 4 of S.92 were complied with. That Section does not require that the person claiming subrogation should himself have paid the entire amount of the previous mortgage debt. It merely says that no right of subrogation is, conferred on any person "unless the mortgage in respect of which the right is claimed has been redeemed in full." The idea is that no claim for subrogation should be entertained so long as the mortgage debt is still outstanding and the mortgage has not been extinguished. If such a claim were entertained there would be a considerable confusion if different persons had discharged different portions of the mortgage debt at different items. If such a claim were entertained there would be a considerable confusion if different persons had discharged different portions of the mortgage debt at different items. In the present case the entire mortgage debt has been discharged and the mortgage has been redeemed in full. The three sets of vendees who paid the mortgage money [other than the mortgagor] would have been entitled to the rights of subrogation in proportion to the amounts paid by them if they had really redeemed the mortgage on their own behalf and come within the purview of paragraph 1 of S. 92." 3. This decision was followed by the Patna High Court in Kamalapati Devi v. Jogehswar Dayal (AIR 1939 Pat. 375). Chatterji, J. observed thus in that case: "The law on the subject is that a right of subrogation cannot be claimed unless the prior mortgage has been redeemed in full. It does not mean that the redemption must be effected entirely by the particular person who claims subrogation. All that is necessary is that the mortgage dues must have been fully satisfied. For instance, if three persons A, B and C advanced money with which a prior mortgage is redeemed in full they are entitled to claim subrogation in proportion to the amounts they have respectively paid." To the same effect is the decision of the Madras High Court in Sinnaswami Goundan v. Rama Goundan (A.I.R. 1941 Madras 563). It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of S. 92 of the Transfer of Property Act in respect of the amount paid by him in partial discharge of the prior mortgage provided the whole mortgage has been extinguished. It is admitted that the whole debt under the chitty hypothecation bond has been extinguished. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a charge on the property for the plaint amount. 4. The decree of the Court below is confirmed and this second appeal is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.