MUSUNURI VENKATANARAYANA Vs. TENNAMANI RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (This appeal first came on for hearing on 26 and 27 January 1927).

(2.) We agree with the view taken by Devadoss, J., of the cases cited by the appellant; those relating to mortgagors suits for redemption and possession ( such as In re Krishnaswami Pathan [1910] 9 M. L. T. 173 are distinguishable on the ground that the mortgagor seeks possession. As to the cases relating to mortgagee's suits for sale, it is true that some cases lay down that, when the joinder has been made and a decree was passed on the paramount title, it is not merely an irregularity which vitiates the finding. No case lays down that the defendant is bound to raise the question relating to the paramount title. We are not able to agree with the decision in Srimantha Seal V/s. Bindubasini Dasi A. I. R. 1924 Cal. 138 where no reasons are given for the view taken.

(3.) The Letters Patent appeal is dismissed.