ORDER

Leave granted.

2. In a second appeal the High Court seems to have decided issues in a suit which were not ripe to be decided. The appellant herein is the 31st defendant in the suit who raised various contentions such as the right of the plaintiff to claim partition of the suit property, that plaintiff was not the member of the original mortgagor s family etc. etc. One of the keenly contested issues related to the question of limitation. That issue has been formulated in the following language :

(6) Does the 31st defendant prove that the suit for redemption of mortgage of 1873 is barred by limitation?

3. Two other issues were framed, namely, issues Nos. 9 and 10 which could also be decided are the following :

(9) Does the 31st defendant prove that suit is not valued properly?

(10) Whether the court fee paid, is sufficient?

4. The trial Court actually considered the above issues and found regarding issue No. 6 that the suit was barred by limitation. The other two issues were found in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court confirmed those findings and dismissed the appeal. The scope of the second appeal cannot, therefore,