JUDGMENT : Stanley, J.:— This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of a learned Judge of this Court, confirming the decision of the lower appellate Court, dismissing a suit for redemption of a mortgage under the following circumstances:— A mortgage was executed by plaintiff-appellant to secure an advance made to him. This mortgage affected three villages, which we may describe as A, B and C. Subsequent to the execution of the mortgage a proportionate part of the mortgage debt was paid off by the mortgagor, and village B was redeemed and discharged from the mortgage. Subsequently a further proportion of the mortgage debt was paid off, and village C was redeemed and discharged from the mortgage. Thus there was left village A alone subject to the mortgage and chargeable only with the unpaid balance of the mortgage debt. The mortgagee purchased a portion of village A, and so became entitled to the equity of redemption in that portion. These facts are admitted. The plaintiff then being desirous of redeeming the mortgage, affecting village A, instituted the present suit. The Court of first instance decreed the claim. On appeal the suit was dismissed on the ground that a party who had an interest in village B, but had no interest whatever in village A, ought to have been but was not made a party to the proceedings under the provisions of section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. On appeal the learned Judge of the Court held as follows:— “The Court of Wards has an interest in the property comprised in the mortgage, and the plaintiff had notice of this fact. The appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs.” This is the entire of the judgment. It is admitted by the learned Vakil for the respondents that the Court of Wards had no interest whatever in village A, but that it had an interest in village B, a village which had already been, redeemed and discharged from the mortgage. The learned Vakil has admitted that he cannot support the ruling of the learned Judge of this Court and we think rightly. The learned Vakil has admitted that he cannot support the ruling of the learned Judge of this Court and we think rightly. It is based upon a wide inter-pretation of the words in section 85 “interest in the property comprised in the mortgage.” The property ‘comprised in the mortgage, the subject-matter of the present suit, is village A alone, the other villages having been redeemed and so become excluded from the operation of the security. 3. It is no longer a portion of the property comprised in the security, and we think it is giving too wide a meaning to the language of section 85 to hold that it is necessary in suit for redemption, of portion of property comprised in a mortgage, where the residue of the property has already been absolutely released from that mortgage, to implead parties who have not a particle of interest in the land which is the subject-matter of the suit, and who cannot be prejudiced by any decree which may be passed. The inconvenience attaching to such an interpretation would be great, particularly in the case of a large estate, with which there had been many and complicated dealings, it would impose a burden on mortgagors and other parties seeking to redeem, which appears to us altogether unnecessary. We do not think the Legislature ever contemplated such a state of things when section 85 was inserted in the Transfer of Property Act. We think that by interest in the property comprised in the mortgage was intended interest in the property which is the subject-matter of the suit and which alone can be affected by the decree. 4. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decree of this Court and also of the lower appellate Court, and we remand the case to the lower appellate Court with a direction that the appeal be replaced on the file of pending appeals and be disposed of on the merits. The plaintiff will have his costs of this appeal and also of the appeal before the learned Judge of this Court including fees on the higher scale in each instance. All other costs will abide the event.