RAMBUDDI VEERASWAMY Vs. RAMBUDDI JANGAMMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These tow revision petitons give rise to an interesting question of law as to whether the persons claiming paramount title independently but not through the mortgagor or mortgagee can be called necessary or proper parties to a suit for redemption of the mortgage.

(2.) The relevant and brief facts that gave rise to these revisions may briefly be stated thus. O. S. No. 60 of 1967 on the file of the Court of District Munisif, Sompet has been filed by the petitioner herein fore redemption of the mortgage executed by his father late Rambuddi Rajayya on 11-9-1933 in favour of the father of the 1st Defendant in respect of Items 1 to 9 of the plaint schedule for a sum of Rs. 200 repayable with interest at 18% per annum. Defendants 2 to 4 had set up a case of adverse possession and paramount title to all the mortgaged properties. It is further averred in the written statement of the 2nd defendant that he sold away Items 7 to 9 in favour of one Rambuddi Haarikrishna. On enquiry, the plaintiff having come to know that the said Harikrishna since died, had sold a portion of those items in favour of one Kalepalli Chinnodu. Defendants 5 and 6, the legal representative of late Harikrishna, Kallepalli Chinnodu, the 7th defendant and his wife Subhjadra being alliances from HariKrishna, were sought to be impleaded as defendants 5 to 8 in I. A. No. 240/67 and I. A. No. 77/68. Defendants 5 to 8 resisted the applications contending inter alia that their presence in the suit would be unnecessary, as they do not claim title to the mortgaged property through the mortgage but as alliances of the second defendant, who sets up an independent paramount title by adverse possession, and hence, it is beyond the scope of the suit. The learned District Munisf, upholding the objection of the respondents, herein, dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, these revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) Sri C. Poornaiah, for the petitioners contended that the defendants 5 to 8 are necessary and in any event, proper parties for a complete and effective adjudication of the rights of the parties as they are interested in t he result of the suit; whereas Sri C. N. Babu fro the respondents contended contra and urged that in a suit for redemption, they are not necessary or proper parties as they did not claim their right through the mortgage but claimed title independently and the scope of the redemption suit being only limited to the parties who claimed interest either form the mortgagor or from the mortgage, they would be prejudiced if they are made parties.