Judgment Defendants 19 to 22 are mortgagees under Exhibit B-45, dated 5th April, 1947 and the 23rd defendant is the mortgagee under Exhibit B-46 of the same date from defendants 1 to 3, 8 to 11 and 16 to 18, who happened to be some of the members of a marumakkatayam tarwad. After a division in status had taken place between the members of the family, these defendants who are only some of the members of the erstwhile tarwad had executed the mortgages aforesaid and directed the mortgagees to redeem certain previous mortgages binding on the tarwad. The lower appellate Court has found that Exhibits B-45 and B-46 qua mortgage are not binding on the tarwad properties as such but has held that since the mortgagees have redeemed the previous mortgages binding on the tarwad they are entitled to be subrogated to the right of the previous mortgagees under the second paragraph of section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act. Mr. Gopalan Nambiar for the appellants who are the other members of erst-while tarwad who have not joined in the mortgages objects to this decree and contends that since the lower appellate Court has found that Exhibits B-45 and B-46 are not binding on the tarwad, the right of subrogation ought not to have been conferred. I am unable to accept this contention. After a division in status, the ‘mortgagor-defendants have become tenants-in-common with regard to the property along with the other members and it is open to some of the tenants-in-cpmmon to mortgage their share of the property to a third party without the junction of the other tenants-in-common. Under section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act it is open to any co-sharer to redeem a mortagage executed by himself and other co-sharers. That being the case, the mortgagor defendants here are entitled to redeem the previous mortgages under section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act. If that is so, the mortgagees from such co-tenants are also persons interested under section 91 and the persons interested under section 91 can redeem an earlier mortgage under the first paragraph of section 92 and if they do so they become subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee whose mortgage they have redeemed. If that is so, the mortgagees from such co-tenants are also persons interested under section 91 and the persons interested under section 91 can redeem an earlier mortgage under the first paragraph of section 92 and if they do so they become subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee whose mortgage they have redeemed. In these circumstances the learned Judge was perfectly right in holding that defendants 19 to 23 have subrogated themselves to the right of the earlier mortgagees whom they have redeemed. No other point arises in this Second Appeal which is therefore dismissed with costs-one set. No leave. K.C. ----- Appeal dismissed.