Ramaswami, J.

1. The question which arises for decision in this case is whether defendants 2 to 4 are necessary parties in the suit brought by the plaintiffs for redemption of the land in dispute.

2. For the plaintiffs it was alleged that his ancestor had on 15-3-17 executed a rehan deed in favour of the father of defendant 1, for a sum of Rs. 50 with respect to 15 bighas 4 kathas 11 dhurs of land. A few months later defendant 1 executed a Bazidawa in favour of defendant party 2 treating the land as bakasht. The plaintiffs deposited the rehan money under Section 83, T. P. Act. After due service of notice on defendant party 1, they instituted a suit for redemption of the land. Defendant party 2 was impleaded on the ground that he interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. The learned Munsif overruled the objection of the defendant party 2 and held that they were necessary parties for the decision of the suit.

3. In support of the rule Mr. Lalnarain Sinha referred to the principle that in a suit for redemption, paramount title ought not to be normally drawn into controversy without the consent of the parties. It was pointed out that in the present case paramount title