JUDGMENT

Mukerji and Bennet, JJ. - This is a first appeal by the Defendants against a decree for possession and mesne profits awarded by the Court of first instance. The facts in this case are as follows: Niadar Mal had a simple money decree against one Nand Kishore in suit No. 219 of 1923, and on the 29th November, 1923, he attached the property of his judgment-debtor. On the 21st May, 1924, he brought to auction-sale certain zamindari property in Mohiuddinpur Baklana and this was bought by the present Defendants in this case Janki Prassrd Bed Ram and Nathan Lal. On the 17th August, 1924, formal possession was given to these Defendants. Meanwhile other proceedings had been going on in regard to this property. There was a simple mortgage dated 28th September, 1920, by Nand Kishore in favour of Abdul Majid and Abdul Wahid for Rs. 20,000, and in this mortgage the zamindari property in Mohiuddinpur Baklana had been mortgaged along with certain other zamindari property in Bagrasi and six shops in Bagrasi. On the 19th May, 1924, Abdul Majid alone brought a suit, No. 114 of 1924, on this mortgage making his brother a pro forma Defendant as he was absent. On the 26th August, 1924, a preliminary decree was passed in this mortgage suit, and a final decree was passed on 4th April, 1925. Meanwhile before the preliminary decree had been passed, on the 19th August, 1924, the present Defendants applied to be made parties in this mortgage suit on the grounds that they were auction-parchasers of the mortgaged property. They had a right to be made parties in view of the. provisions of Section 91 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act, as it stood at that date, and also of Order 34, Rule 1, as they were persons interested in the mortgaged property. The Plaintiff unwisely opposed that application, and it was dismissed on the same date. Accordingly, he Defendants were no parties to the preliminary decree or the final decree and they were not given any opportunity to redeem the property in the mortgage suit. The executior proceeding resulted in the sale of mauza Mohiuddinpur Baklana property on the 20th June, 1927, and the decree-holder, the Plaintiff, purchased the property, and on the 26th August, 1927, he obtained formal possession. In the Revenue Courts there were proceedings imputation which resulted in appeal" in the application of the Defendants for mutation being accepted and the application of the Plaintiffs being rejected.

2. According y, the Plaintiffs Abduls Majid Khan and his brother Abdul Wahid Khan have brought the present suit for possession of the mortgaged property which they have purchased at auction sale, and for mesne profits for the period from the date of sale up to the date of suit. The p(sic)t also states in an alternative of relief that if Court considers for any reason that the Defendants h(sic)ht of redemption they may be given an opportunity (sic)ede(sic) the mortgage on payment of the amount mentioned (sic) f the plaint. Para. 10 does not state any definite amount of money, but an(sic)ntly the reference is intended to Para (sic) which it is (sic) that the amount due under the said (sic) deed up to this date conies to about Rs. 21,000. The (sic)f the Defendants, however, if they have right of red(sic)ion, would not be confined to redemption on payment of the whole amount of money but only of a proportionate amount in the property on which this property bears to the whole mortgage. In argument was admitted by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the decree of the lower Court is incorrect and that the Defendants have a right of redemption. this right to clearly arises in view of the Provisions in Section 91(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, as it stood before the Amendment of 1929, by which the judgment-creditor of mortgagor, when he has obtained execution by attachment of the mortgagor's interest in the property, is a person who has a right of redemption. The Plaintiffs therefore acted incorrectly in opposing the ap