1. We think it is competent to the court to add parties who were defendants in the Court of First Instance, though not joined as respondents in the Lower Appellate Court. In the case referred to, Section A. 165 of 1894, the party was not added by the Court, but by the appellant himself. Section 559 occurs in the chapter of the Code relating to appeals from original decrees and it is by Section 587 that this section is, so far as may be, made applicable to second appeals. We do not think it was intended to preclude the court from adding in second appeal persons who had been originally joined in the suit. We are unable to follow the decision in Chunni v. Lala Ram (1893) I. L. R. 36 A. 6.

2. The Judge considers that a veruntpattom tenant claiming under a lease executed by the Ottidar is not in a position to redeem the prior kanom. He observes that the lessee is not mentioned specifically in Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act as belonging to the class of persons entitled to redeem and that under a lease, as denned in Section 105, he is not described as taking an interest in the property but only a right to possession.

3. In our opinion the word interest is not nee sarily