Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This plaintiffs appeal, which arises out of a suit for redemption brought by them against the respondents is from the Judgment of Mr. J. C. Sinha, then. Subordinate Judge, third Court, Gaya, who reversed the decree of the trial Court against defendants 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 9, 9fa) and 9(h), and, dismissed the suit as against them, on the ground that they, being trespassers in possession of the mortgaged properties in suit, were not necessary parties to the suit.

2. The suit was decreed against all the defendants by the trial Court, but, on appeal, it was dismissed as against the fust mentioned defendants, who only were the appellants in the court of appeal below. The decree as against the other defendants was not challenged, and, therefore, it stood affirmed.

3. The sole question for determination, in the appeal, is whether the above mentioned defendants had been improperly joined as parties to the suit, and, whether the suit has rightly been dismissed against them by the court of appeal below?

4. Put shortly, the material facts are these: Mungeshwar LaI3 and Darbari Lall were admittedly uterine brothers. On 26-1-1944, Mungeshwar executed a rehan in f