GOPI NATH Vs. RUP RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary object the hearing of the appeal has been raised on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents. It is necessary to give the acts briefly in order to consider that objection.

(2.) The appeal arises out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage dead of 1913 against the representatives of the mortgagors and subsequent mortgagees and transferees. The defendants were Kanhaiya Lal, a mortgagee of 1924, and Dr. Gopi Nath, who had purchased part of the property in execution of a simple money decree. Kanhaiya Lal and Gopi Nath both contested the suit in the Court below but the other defendants did not. The suit was decreed. An appeal was filed by Dr. Gopi Nath alone in this High Court against the whole decree, impleading Kanhaiya Lal and the other persons as pro forma respondents.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal Kanhaiya Lal executed his decree obtained on the basis of his own mortgage, to which however neither the present plaintiffs- respondents nor Gopi Hath was a party, and Kanhaiya Lal himself purchased the property on the 20 April 1927. Subsequently he applied to the High Court for the transference of his name from the array of the respondents to that of the appellants. Notices were issued, and after hearing the parties a learned Judge of this Court passed an order dated the 12 June 1928 transferring the name of Kanhaiya Lal from the array of the respondents and made him a co-appellant. In the meantime the second mortgagee Mathura Prasad obtained a decree on the basis of his deed of 1921 against all the subsequent transferees and put the property to sale, and it was purchased by Roshan Lal on the 20 July 1929. Roshan Lal has been made a respondent to this appeal.