Thom and Allsop, JJ.
1. Two questions only are raised in this appeal. A prior mortgage was redeemed partly by the mortgagor and partly by vendees, who after the execution of the puisne mortgage, purchased the mortgaged property. In terms of the sale deeds in their favour payments were made by the vendees to the prior mortgagees in part redemption of the prior mortgage. The vendees claim in the present suit by the puisne mortgagees the right of subrogation under Section 92, T.P. Act. The plaintiffs maintain that the vendees are not entitled to the right of subrogation In respect that (1) The part redemption in terms of covenants in the sale deeds, and (2) the prior mortgage was not fully redeemed by any one of the persons mentioned in argument that Clause 3 of Section 91. There are conflicting decisions on the questions raised. In the circumstances, we consider it expedient the point should be referred to a Pull Bench. Let the record be laid before the Hon'ble, C.J. for the constitution of a Pull Bench to decide the following question of law, viz., (1) Where a prior mortgage is redeemed partly by the mortgagor and partly by vendees of the mortgaged property out of the sale consideration and us terms of covenants in the sale deeds in their favour, are the vendees, as against puisne mortgagees, entitled to the rights of subrogation under Section 92, T.P. Act? (2) Does Clause 3 of Section 92, T.P. Act, apply to persons mentioned in Section 91 of the Act?