Redemption suits may include connected title and possession disputes, and minor procedural irregularities will not upset the decree.

In a mortgage redemption suit, connected disputes over possession and title to part of the mortgaged property may be tried in the same proceeding where the parties join issue and the court permits or acquiescence appears. Order 2 Rule 4 CPC allows such joinder in a proper case, including claims for possession on redemption. Even if trying those issues together is irregular, Section 99 CPC bars reversal unless the irregularity affects the merits or the court's jurisdiction; absence of prejudice is decisive. The text therefore treats procedural irregularity as insufficient to disturb the decree where evidence was fully led and no jurisdictional defect was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the tenant defendants were properly joined and whether issues relating to their alleged title and possession could be tried in the redemption suit; (ii) whether, assuming any irregularity in trying those issues, the decree could be disturbed on appeal.

Issue (i): whether the tenant defendants were properly joined and whether issues relating to their alleged title and possession could be tried in the redemption suit.

Analysis: In a mortgage redemption suit, questions unconnected with the mortgage are ordinarily not tried together with the mortgage claim. But Order 2 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code permits leave for such joinder in a proper case, and the proviso also contemplates the mortgagor seeking possession on redemption. The defendants, while resisting the suit, asserted possession and title in respect of part of the mortgaged property. The Court held that, in the circumstances, the issues were fit to be tried in the same suit and that the parties had effectively proceeded with the Court's leave or acquiescence.

Conclusion: The tenant defendants were properly brought in for decision of the issues raised, and the trial Court was competent to decide them.

Issue (ii): whether, assuming any irregularity in trying those issues, the decree could be disturbed on appeal.

Analysis: Even if the decision to try the questions in the redemption suit involved an irregularity, Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code prevents reversal unless the irregularity affects the merits or the jurisdiction of the Court. The parties had full opportunity to lead evidence, and no prejudice or want of jurisdiction was shown. The Court therefore held that the earlier appellate interference could not stand.

Conclusion: The alleged irregularity did not justify setting aside the decree.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the contrary High Court decision was reversed, and the District Judge's decree was restored with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a redemption suit, the Court may permit determination of connected disputes concerning possession or title where the parties join issue and no prejudice or jurisdictional defect is shown, and a mere procedural irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction will not justify reversal under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code.

---