An appeal by an aggrieved defendant is generally maintainable prima facie, as long as the person in whose favor the decree has been passed is made a respondent.

Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 42 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram to recover moneys due on hypothecation bonds, dated 20th February 1913 (Ex, A) and 6th October 1915 (Ex. B) executed by the deceased father of defendants 1 and 2, in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants other than defendants 1 and 2 are persons who claim rights (subsequent to A and B) with reference to various portions of the properties mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 8 claimed to haw purchased a, portion of the hypotheca in an auction sale held in execution of a money decree obtained against defendants 1 and 2, and their deceased father and others, after the dates of the mortgage bonds, A and B. Defendants 1 and 2 did not appear in the lower Court. The other defendants raised contentions regarding the validity of the mortgages, A and B. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the mortgages were valid and that the plaintiff was entitled to have the various items included in his mortgages sold in execution to realise the amount decreed to him. Defendant 8 has preferred the present appeal making only the plaintiff as party respondent to his appeal. His complaint in the appeal is that the mortgages in favour of the plaintiff are not valid and that under auction purchase referred to above he has obtained absolute title to the property purchased by him in Court auction. When the learned Advocate for defendant 8 (appellant) opened the appeal the learned Advocate for the plaintiff (respondent) raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal by defendant 8 alone, without making defendants 1 and 2 and also other defendants interested in the various items of properties mortgaged to the plaintiff as parties was incompetent and that the appeal should be dismissed in limine on that ground alone. The learned Advocate for the respondent argued that the appeal preferred by defendant 8 would re-open matters already decided between the plaintiff on the one hand, and defendants 1 and 2 and the other defendants on the other. It was pressed upon us that the plaintiff had already obtained a decree to the effect that the mortgages in favour of the plaintiff are binding on defendants 1 and 2, and that defendant 8 was seeking in this appeal to obtain relief inconsistent with the findings arrived at by the lower Court as regards the binding nature of the mortgages. It was therefore argued that it was not open to defendant 8, without making other persons, concerning whom there was a binding adjudication, parties to the appeal, to claim relief in respect of his purchase in Court auction. In support of that argument, the learned Advocate for the respondent cited two Privy Council cases reported in Chockalingam Chetty v. Seethi Achi 1927 P.C. 252 and Umed Mal v. Chand Mal 1926 P.C. 142.

2. In Chockalingam Chetty v. Seethi Achi 1927 P.C. 252, the Privy Council had to consider whether a plaintiff, who sought relief against several defendants, alleging that defendant 1 did not obtain a valid title to the properties in dispute, that he did not pass any valid title to defendant 2 and that defendant 2 did not pass any valid title to defendant 3 could maintain an appeal in which only defendant 3 had been made respondent. The first Court, dismissing his suit, held that defendant 1 had as a matter of fact obtained a valid title as against the original owner. The plaintiff claimed relief in appeal, making only the last of the defendants in actual possession of the properties, as party respondent to his appeal. It was pointed out by the Rangoon High Court in the case reported in Chockalingam Chetty v. Seethai Achi 1925 Rang. 108, that having regard to the decree passed by the trial Court upholding defendant 1s title and dismissing the suit as against all the defendants, it was not open to the plaintiff to claim in appeal reliefs inconsistent with that finding, without making defendant 1 a party to the appeal. The