JUDGMENT

1. This appeal and the connected Appeal No. 942 of 1919 arise out of one suit. The appeals are by two sets of defendants. The facts which have given rise to these two appeals are briefly as follows: Ishri Prasad Rai was the owner of an eight-pie share in a certan village. He hypothecated the aforesaid share to Babu Udit Narain Rai under two hypothecation bonds of the 24th of June 1876 and the 2nd of July 1877, respectively. I,ateron, five pies out of. the hypothecated property were sold in execution, of a Revenue Court decree against the mortgagor and were purchased by his brother Dip Narain and his nephews, Chiranjit and Jaimangal, on- the 20th of March 1882. Ishri Prasad Rai died later on and his widow, Musammat Sona Kunwar, succeeded to a Hindu widow's interest in the property. It appears that on the 3rd of September 1890 Musammat Sona Kunwar made a gift of the whole of the eight-pies share to her daughter's son Mahabajrang Dat. Chiranjit and his brother, Jaimangal, who were two out of the three purchaseis of the five-pies share were own brothers and members of a joint Hindu family. Jaimangal died without leaving any issue and Chiranjit became the owner of his share also by right of survivorship. He sued for possession of a two-thirds of the property purchased at auction and obtained a decree against the donee Mahabajrang Dat on the 16th of March 1895. Babu Udit Narain, the mortagee, died and after his death a suit for sale was brought by his son, and later on, the son also having died during the pendency of the suit, his widow, Musammat Sheobarta Kuari, obtained a decree for sale on the two mortgages against Chiranjit, Dip Narain and Mahabajrang Dat on the 15th of December 1896. On the 20th of December 1902 in execution of this decree the mortgaged property was sold and was purchased by the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 and he obtained possession on the 18th of October 1905. This is how the plaintiff claims a title in the property. On the 20th of November 1902 the defendants Nos. 1-3 purchased two-thirds of the five-pies share purchased by Chiranjit and Jaimangal in execution of a simple money-decree passed u/s 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendant No. 4, whose father had purchased the whole of the eight-pies share mortgaged a portion of it consisting of specified plots to defendant No. 5. This is how the other defendants have been impleaded in the suit. The plaintiff says that the mortgage by defendant No. 4, who was a member of a joint Hindu family with the plaintiff, is unlawful and void as against the plaintiff. His further contention is that he, along with defendant No. 4, owned the property purchased by them in execution of the mortgage-decree and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 being purchasers in a simple money-decree have no right to withhold possession from them. It will be important to bear in mind that to the suit which terminated in the decree on 15th December 1896 Chiranjit was impleaded as a party after the death of Musammal Sona Kunwar, the widow of the mortgagor. He was, along with others, impleaded as a representative of Sona Kunwat and not as a purchaser of the mortgaged property.

2. The points raised by defendants Nos. 1-3 are, firstly, that they were not made parties to the suit as purchasers and hence they had no opportunity of redeeming the mortgage and they should now be given an opportunity to do so and the plaintiff's suit dismissed, and, secondly, that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation.

3. The First Court decreed the plaintiff's claim for possession of half of the property. On appeal by the two sets of defendants the lower Appellate Court has in the appeal by defendants Nos. 1-3 passed the following order, "I, therefore, modify the decree of the Court below by dismissing the suit for possession of half of three-pies 5 3/4 chataks share together with joint possession of the MV and khudkasht lands appertaining to this share." And in the appeal by defendant No. 4 he ha