Appellate Court Reinstates Tenant Defendants in Mortgage Suit; Upholds Plaintiff's Right to Redeem and Awards Costs.

The High Court's decision by Mr. Justice Ross, which excluded tenant defendants from a mortgage redemption suit, was overturned. The appellate court reinstated the District Judge's decree, affirming the inclusion of tenant defendants as proper parties under Order 34 Rule 1 CPC. The plaintiff's right to redeem the zarpeshgi mortgage was upheld, and costs for the appeals were awarded to the plaintiff. Justice B.K. Mullick concurred with the decision, emphasizing the necessity of addressing all relevant parties in mortgage suits to avoid multiple proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Ross over-ruling the District Judge's decision regarding redemption of a zarpeshgi mortgage and involvement of tenant defendants in the suit.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff filed a suit to redeem a zarpeshgi mortgage granted in 1898. The plaintiff acquired the entire proprietary interest in the mortgaged property and sought redemption in 1918. The suit involved defendants 1 to 9 as zarpeshgidars and defendants 10 to 14 as tenant defendants. The Munsif ruled in favor of the plaintiff for redemption and found against the tenant defendants on their claim to the property.

2. The tenant defendants appealed to the District Judge, who upheld the Munsif's decision. The District Judge considered the tenant defendants as proper parties under Order 34 Rule 1 CPC, avoiding multiple suits. The District Judge agreed with the trial court's findings on the merits of the case.

3. A second appeal was made to the High Court, where Mr. Justice Ross overturned the District Judge's decision. Mr. Justice Ross held that the tenant defendants were not relevant parties in a mortgage redemption suit and that issues raised with them were not pertinent. He cited Order 2 Rule 4 CPC, emphasizing the need to focus on mortgage-related matters in such suits.

4. Mr. Justice Ross highlighted the importance of separating issues in mortgage suits and the discretion of the court to allow additional issues if necessary. He noted that the irregularity of including the tenant defendants' status did not affect the merits or jurisdiction of the case. The judgment referred to various precedents supporting the exclusion of unrelated issues in a mortgage suit.

5. The judgment concluded that the decision of Mr. Justice Ross was erroneous, and the District Judge's decree was reinstated. The plaintiff was awarded costs for the appeals. Justice B.K. Mullick concurred with the decision.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of the appeal under Letters Patent, the involvement of tenant defendants in a zarpeshgi mortgage redemption suit, and the contrasting decisions of the lower courts and the High Court.

---