JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned District Judge of Lucknow. In order to appreciate the facts of the case leading up to the present appeal it is necessary to set forth the following pedigree:

TABLE

2. Dr. Abdur Rahman Khan, mentioned in the above pedigree, was the owner of the property in dispute and two other houses which are not in dispute, in all consisting of three houses, and two shops situated at Aminabad in the city of Lucknow. He mortgaged with possession on 8th September 1884, the entire property belonging to himself to one Shaikh Pir Bakhsh for Rs. 2500. The names of Abdul Ghafoor Khan, Abdul Majeed Khan, Abdul Hameed Khan and Abdul Hasan Khan, the sons of Dr. Abdur Rahman Khan, under his guardianship, were also added as the executants of the deed. As regards interest, it was agreed that the mortgagor should execute a sarkat in favour of the mortgagee for Rs. 25 per mensem by way of rent and should continue to pay that rent every month. The mortgagor failed to pay the rent stipulated in the sarkhat, whereupon the mortgagor with the consent of the mortgagee sold to one Mangal two houses out of the property mortgaged and the money received as consideration was paid to the mortgagee in respect of the rent that had accumulated and was due to him. Subsequently, on 13th April 1893, the mortgagee assigned his mortgagee rights in the property in suit for a sum of Rs. 1700 in favour of Ram Karan, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-appellant. On 7th December 1894, Abdul Majid Khan, Abdul Hameed Khan, Sughra Begam on her own behalf and as guardian of Musahib Khanam, Abdul Latif Khan and Masooma Khanam sold the entire property under mortgage to the mortgagee for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 2850 (vide Ex. A-3). Rs. 350 out of the consideration were paid in cash and the rest, i. e. Rs. 2500, are recited to have been left with the mortgagee as due on the mortgage. Later, by a deed of 12th August 1895, (Ex. A-4) Abdul Hasan and his mother Mt. Mariyam, in lieu of a sum of Rs. 150 ratified the sale deed of 1894 (Ex. A-3). The plaintiffs, who are some of the representatives of the original mortgagor, Dr. Abdur Rahman Khan, have brought the present suit for recovery of the property in suit by redemption of the mortgage dated 8th September 1884.

3. It may be noted here that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are Abdul Latif Khan and Mt. Masooma Khanam themselves; plaintiff 3 is the representative of Mt. Musahib Kha-nam; plaintiffs 4 to 11 are the representatives of Mt. Khudaija Begam and Mt. Qadri Khanam; plaintiffs 12 to 14 are the representatives of Abdul Majeed Khan and defendants 2 to 10 are the representatives of Abdul Hameed Khan. Thus, all the representatives of the original mortgagor are parties in the suit. The defendant 1 contested the suit on the ground among others that by the sale deeds dated 7th December 1894, and 12th August 1895, (Exs. A-3 and A-4) he purchased the equity of redemption from all the persons interested as mortgagors and had become the absolute owner of the property mortgaged. The trial Court framed the following issues from which other defences will also appear.:

1. Is the pedigree given in the plaint so far as it is denied genuine ? 2. (a) Was the equity of redemption sold to defendant 1 as alleged in para. 16 of the written statement 1 (b) Is the sale binding on plaintiffs as alleged in paragraph 17 of the written statement ? Was Musahib Khanam a minor at the date of the sale ? 3. Is defendant 1 owner of the property in suit by adverse possession ? 4. Is the suit barred by limitation ? 5 Have the plaintiffs a right of accounting under the deed in suit ? 6. Is the share F.E.X.Y.Z. also included in the mortgage in suit ? 7. To what relief are the plaintiffs entitled ?

4. On issues Nos. 1 and 2 the trial Court held that the pedigree was correct and that Mt. Khudaija Begam and Mt. Qadri Khanam, the two daughters of Dr. Abdur Rahman Khan, who had survived him, we