Abdur Rahman, J.

1. A suit for possession and injunction was filed by one Guzulu Devendra Iyer against Muthu Chettiar as defendant 1 and Venkateswara Iyer as defendant 2 in July 1931 in the Court of the District Munsif at Melur in which the tenant was also imp leaded as defendant 3. Certain mesne profits were also claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. While filing his written statement, defendant 1 raised a number of contentions in which ha attacked the locus standi of the plaintiff to maintain the suit on the ground that he was not an occupancy tenant and asserted that the othi (Ex. A-l) was invalid. It was admitted by him that he was the landholder but alleged that defendant 2 was in possession of the lands in suit and that the land was rightfully sold to him in a revenue auction for arrears of rent. It was also pleaded on his behalf that he was an unnecessary party to the suit. A number of issues were then framed by the lower Court, but the objection raised by defendant 1 that he was an unnecessary party did not form the subject matter of an issue at all.

2. It is true that as contended on behalf of the respondent, the duty of framing issues has been cast by the Civil Procedu