The appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:

1). Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge ignoring the orders passed on I.A.No.7, wherein the right of the vendor of plaintiff was adjudicated?

2). Whether the suit for redemption by the plaintiff, as a purchaser is maintainable?

2. Most of the facts are admitted. The matrix of the case can be summarised as follows:

The property in question originally belonged to one M.Rajasekhariah and his mother Chennamma. Both of them mortgaged the suit property in favour of the defendant pursuant to a registered mortgage deed dated 27.04.1960 for a sum of Rs.500/-. The said mortgage is with possession i.e., a usufructuary mortgage. Since the date of mortgage, the defendant is in possession of the suit property as a mortgagee. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from its owner M.Rajasekhariah pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 01.05.1988. It is his case that co-owner Smt.Chennamma is not heard for over a period of 15 years prior to the filing of the suit.

After he purchased the suit property, plaintiff asked the d