The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the plaintiffs' right to redeem the mortgage and the determination of the suit's premature nature based on the terms of the mortgage deed.

1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiffs obtained a decree far redemption in the Court of she Districts Munsif of Vizagapatam and the decision was confirmed on appeal. The defendants, who represent the mortgagees, contend that the plaintiffs suit is not maintainable: first because the plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain the suit and they are estopped from asserting that their vendor had any title to convey to them; and secondly because the term of the mortgage has not expired and the suit is premature.

2. The lands in dispute were the property of one Anga Narasimhulu who died in 1901 leaving a widow Rangamma and two daughters. After his death the widow put forward Anga Ramaswami as having been adopted to her deceased husband. On 6th April 1902, she executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 1,000, in favour of the 1st defendant. The mortgagor under this document was her adopted son Ramaswami, represented by his guardian, the adoptive mother. On 2nd May 1906, another usufructuary mortgage was executed by the widow as guardian of her adopted son for Rs. 1,400. In this mortgage the prior mortgage of 6th April 1902 was merged. This mortgage, Ex. B, is sought to be redeemed in the present suit. On 2nd July 1910 Rangamma sold the suit property to the plaintiffs father. On 6th July, 1910 the adopted son, who had attained majority, sold the property to Yaddadi Ramaswami, who in his turn, on 11th January 1912, sold the same property to Mylavarapu Venkata Rao. The plaintiffs father brought a suit in 1910, O.S. No. 51 of 1910, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam to eject the present appellants after declaring the mortgage in their favour to be invalid. That suit was dismissed, the plaintiffs right to redeem the mortgage being left open and he being given liberty to bring another suit. In 1912 the two, daughters instituted a suit, O.S. No. 18 of 1912, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam to declare the adoption of Anga Ramaswami invalid. It was held that the adoption was not proved and this decision was confirmed by the High Court on appeal. One other fact requires to be mentioned, namely, that Rangamma executed a Will on 13th April 1902, bequeathing all her properties in favour of her adopted son and two daughters, one-third to him and two-thirds to the daughters. As Rangamma is still alive, though not a party to the present suit, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of this testamentary disposition.

3. On the first point the appellants vakil argues that the mortgage having been given in the name of the adopted son, the plaintiffs who claim by purchase from the widow have no equity of redemption in their favour, and that the adopted son having sold the property to Vaddadi Ramaswami, who again conveyed it to Mylavarapu Venkata Rao, it is suggested that, if anyone has the equity of redemption, it must be Mylavarapu Venkata Rao, Again he contends that the widow, having executed the plaint mortgage deed as guardian of her adopted son, would be estopped from claiming any right of redemption in herself, and that the plaintiifs being representatives of the interest of the widow, are similarly estopped.

4. In my opinion there is no estoppel in this case. The plaintiffs father purchased the property under Ex. A from the widow who sold it in her own right and not as guardian of her adopted son. In fact she would have had no right to Sell the property on his behalf if the adoption was a valid one as by that time he had attained his majority. The validity of the adoption was the subject of O.S. No. 18 of 1912. It has not been put in issue in this suit, although the Subordinate Judge in his appeal judgment states that there was in fact no adoption. The appellants who claim to set Up jus tertii in Venkata Rao as a defence to plaintiffs suit do not themselves claim under Venkata Rao. The plaintiffs have never made any representation as to the ownership of the property conflicting with