WANCHOO, C.J.— This is the second part of the judgment in this appeal, the first part of which was delivered by us on the 18th November, 1952. ((See Bhajandas vs. Nanuram (1953 RLW. 92)) The facts have all been given in that judgment and it is, therefore, unnecessary to repeat points which have been urged before us and give our decision on them.

2. The first point, that is urged, is that one Sitaram, who was adopted by Budhrajs widow Mst. Shanti was a necessary party to the suit, and as he had not been made a party and this was a suit based on mortgage, it should be dismissed. We find, however, that Sitaram was adopted pendente lite by Mst. Shanti. He applied for being made a party on the ground of adoption, That application was opposed by the plaintiff and was dismissed. Bhajandas, appellant, neither supported nor opposed that application. Bhajandas case therefore, never was either in the trial court or in the first appellate court, that Sitarani was a necessary party, and that the suit should be dismissed because Sitaram was not made a party by the trial court. The question then arises whether we should permit the appellant to raise this point relating to Sitaram, for the first ti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document