JUDGMENT

1. This is a first appeal from a decree passed by the Civil Judge of Sultan-pur in favour of respondent 1 Mt. Parkash Rani against the appellant Sheo Prasad and respondents 2 to 12. Mt. Raj Bibi and her son executed a deed of mortgage on 20th December 1920 in favour of the appellant Sheo Prasad. Subsequently Mt. Raj Bibi mortgaged the same property in favour of the respondent Parkash Rani on 5th September 1921 for Rs. 2000. The rate of interest in this bond was 2 per cent, per mensem compoundable six monthly. One Pandit Kuar Prasad Adib obtained a simple money decree No. 275 of 1923 against Mt. Raj Bibi and one Riasat Husain and in execution of that decree, the property mortgaged in both the mortgage deeds was sold and purchased by Kuar Prasad on 20th/26th October 1926. Pandit Kuar Prasad obtained a sale certificate on 30th November 1926. Sheo Prasad the present appellant brought a suit on the basis of his mortgage dated 20th December 1920 against the mortgagor Mt. Raj Bibi and the sons of the other mortgagor, Tahar Raza Khan. Pandit Kuar Parsad was made a defendant as purchaser of the mortgaged property and Mt. Prakash Rani the mortgagee under the deed of 5th September 1921 was made a defendant as subsequent mortgagee. Other persons were also impleaded as subsequent transferees. The suit was contested by all the defendants except the mortgagor Raj Bibi, the heirs of the other mortgagor and four out of several subsequent, transferees. Pandit Kuar Prasad and Parkash Rani were among the contesting defendants. One of the issues framed in that case was:

(a) Is the mortgage deed dated 20th December 1920 genuine? (b) If so, was it executed intelligently by Mt. Raj Bibi?

2. Another issue was:

Is defendant 6 barred by the rule of res judicata from challenging the validity of Ex. 1, (the mortgage deed dated 20th December 1920) on any ground whatsoever?

3. The finding of the Court was that the mortgage deed dated 20th December 1920 was not genuine. The finding on the other issue was that defendant 6 Kuar Prasad was barred by the rule of res judicata from challenging the validity of the mortgage deed dated 20th December 1920. The result was that the suit was decreed for the recovery of Rs. 15,185 with costs against Kuar Prasad defendant 6 and dismissed with costs against the remaining defendants. A decree for sale was passed on 22nd April 1983. An appeal from the decree was preferred to this Court but it was dismissed. The present suit was brought on 3rd September 1935 by Mt. Parkash Rani to enforce her mortgage deed dated 5th September 1921. It was brought against the mortgagor Mt. Raj Bibi, Pandit Kuar Prasad, the purchaser of the property and other persons. Sheo Prasad was not made a defendant in the suit. He applied on 11 th December 1985 that he be made a defendant in the suit. That application was dismissed by the trial Court. Sheo Prasad filed a revision in this Court and it was ordered on 22nd September 1987 that Sheo Prasad was a necessary party to the suit and so he be added as a defendant. The appellant Sheo Prasad was actually made a defendant by order of the Civil Judge dated 27th November 1987. The suit was contested by defendant 10 Sheo Prasad alone and his defence gave rise to the following issues: (1) Is the mortgage deed in suit genuine and was it intelligently executed by Mt. Raj Bibi? (2) Is the plaintiff not entitled to sue for the reasons alleged in para. 15 of the written statement of defendant 10? (Paragraph 15 was:

In case the deed in suit be proved, then the answering defendant has also this objection that the plaintiff had no means to pay off the consideration money but as a matter of fact Pandit Ram Prasad vakil could have paid the consideration money and an ism-i-farzi deed was got executed in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not authorized to file this suit because the sons of Ram Prasad Adib are alive.)

4. (3) Is the suit within time against defendant 10? (4) Is the interest under the dee