1. This revision is directed against the order rejecting the objections raised by the additional 9th respondent against execution. The revision arises from a suit, O. S. No. 160 of 1523. The bare facts necessary to understand the history of the litigation are as follows.

2. One David Moses owned 44 cents of land on which stood a building. He had executed a mortgage on 9/8/1101 in favour of Luthor Annam, the 1st defendant. David Moses assigned the equity of redemption to one Thomas on 30-3-21 who in turn assigned it to the plaintiff on 19-9-21. It was on the strength of this assignment that the plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage. In the suit the defence put forward by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant by a joint written statement was that Moses had agreed to sell the property by an agreement dated 5-9-1108 for Rs. 1920/-agreeing to execute the sale deed within six months, failing which the agreement would be construed as a sale deed. It appears, that the defendants had put forward several documents including a will to defeat the interest of the plaintiff. Pending suit the 1st defendant died. Defendants 2, 3,4 and 5 were impleaded as her legal re