( 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 Ha