SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The petitioners are the principal borrowers from co-respondents No.1 and 2. However, co-respondent No.3 has liquidated the entire mortgaged money(ies) to co-respondents No.1 and 2, and, the factum (supra), is undisputed.

2. Though under an agreement, as became executed inter-se the petitioners, and, co-respondents No.1 and 2, the liability to liquidate the borrowed sums of money became encumbered, upon, the co-petitioners No.1 to 4. However, as above stated, the liquidation(s) of the borrowings, as made by the co-petitioners from co-respondents No.1 and 2, rather has occurred at the instance of co-respondent No.3.

3. Be as it may, in sequel of the borrowings, as made by the petitioners from co-respondents No.1 and 2 rather becoming liquidated by co-respondent No.3, would not yet ipso facto result, in redemption of the mortgaged property, which is however jointly owned by the petitioners. The reason for drawing the above inference becomes sparked from the factum, that the co-respondent No.3 rears an apprehension, that despite under the apposite agreement, though liquidations of the borrowings as made by all the co-petitioners from co-respondents No.1 and, 2, th