1. In this case the plaintiff is the owner of one share in the equity of redemption of the plaint properties which have been mortgaged to the second defendant. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for redemption of her share alone, but, as the plaintiff was not willing to take such a decree, her suit has been dismissed, and sow in appeal she contends that she is entitled to redeem the whole of the property on payment of the whole of the mortgage amount. This is in accordance with the decision in Huthasanan Nambudri v. Parameswaram Nambudri (1899) 22 Mad. 209 and also the decision in Mora Joshi v. Ramachandra Dinkar Joshi (1891) 15 Bom. 24 and Narayan v. Ganpat (1897) 21 Bom. 619, but the former decision was expressly dissented from in a later one reported as Rathna Mudali v. Perumal Reddy (1912) 38 Mad. 310. Our attention has, however, been called to a very recent ruling of the Privy Council reported as Mirza Yadelli Beg v. Tukaram A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 125, in which it is held that, subject to the safeguarding of the equal title to redeem of any other person who had a right of redemption, the owner of a partial equity of redemption is entitled