These three appeals relate to the same properties and are being fought between the same parties. The 1st defendant (I speak with reference to O. S. No. 106 of 1961) is the appellant and claims to be the mortgagee of the properties covered by S. A. No. 784 of 1967 and his wife, being the mortgagee of the properties covered by S. A. No. 785 of 1967 is the appellant therein. The 1st defendant is the donee under Ext. D7, to set aside which O. S. No. 106 of 1961 was brought, and S. A. No. 991 of 1966 relates to that suit. The properties covered by Ext. D7 gift were claimed by the donor, the 2nd defendant, to be her own and although she has died after filing her written statement, the 1st defendant sustains the same plea and stands to benefit by Ext. D7 being held valid. Himself and his wife being mortgagees in possession, resisted the actions for redemption brought by the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner of the equity of redemption under the will, Ext. P1 (original is Ext. D3).

The same plaintiff in O. S. No. 106 of 1961 seeks to set aside the gift, Ext. D7, claiming to be the owner of the properties covered by that deed. Thus, all the three suits