S. Velu Pillai, J.

1. In this appeal by the second defendant, which arises out of a suit for the redemption of a mortgasge, Ext. A, of the year 1114, executed by the plaintiff and his mother, the second plaintiff, to the mother of the defendants, two questions arise for determination, first relating to the decree for mesne profits, and second relating to the decree for improvements. A transferee of about 43 cents of the mortgaged property from the plaintiffs, has been impleaded on his application as the sixth respondent in this appeal and he has preferred a cross-objection to the decree awarding value of improvements. A preliminary objection, to be disposed of presently, was taken to the competency of the cross-objection by the learned counsel for the third respondent-first-defendant; that, as a transferee, pending suit, he had no right of appeal, except perhaps with the leave of the court, that a cross-objection too cannot be maintained without such leave, and that no leave could be granted in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel relied upon a number of decided cases, which have held, that a party not on record, cannot prefer an appeal, except with the leave o