Judgment :- 1. Defendants 20 and 21 in O.S. No. 440 of 1115 on the file of the District Munsiff, Thiruvella are the appellants. The suit was to enforce a deed of hypothecation, Ext. A dated 28.6.1089 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 5th defendant who assigned his rights to the plaintiff. The 4th defendant is a member of the tarwad of defendants 1 to 3 and was impleaded as such. In the suit as originally filed there were only 5 defendants. The second defendant filed a written statement setting up sole title in himself over the hypothecation for certain reasons mentioned by him therein. He explained the execution of the deed of hypothecation as having been resorted to not to evidence a transaction but for the purpose of enabling him successfully to prosecute certain proceedings relating to the title of items 1 to 4 of the properties hypothecated. These items 1 to 4 originally belonged to a divided branch of a tarwad of which one Krishna Neelakantan was the last surviving member. The 2nd defendant contended that he had been in some manner affiliated to that divided branch with the result that on Krishnan Neelakantan's death, the 2nd defendant became the last surviving member and in that way became solely entitled to the properties. Krishnan Neelakantan executed a will bequeathing items 1 and 2 in favour of his wife and son. That will was produced for registration after the death of the testator in connection with which the second defendant appeared and opposed registration impeaching the will as a forgery. His contentions were overruled and the will was directed to be registered. On account of this order for registration, he filed a suit O.S. 302 of 1089 for a declaration that the will directed to be registered was a forgery. Subsequently he appears to have withdrawn the suit. The petition for withdrawal is Ext.1 in the case dated 8.8.1089. The deed of hypothecation sought to be enforced in the suit appears to be executed during the pendency of the suit. 2. Subsequently he appears to have withdrawn the suit. The petition for withdrawal is Ext.1 in the case dated 8.8.1089. The deed of hypothecation sought to be enforced in the suit appears to be executed during the pendency of the suit. 2. The second defendant also contended that the wife and child of Krishnan Neelakantan already mentioned, assigned the properties to the 19th defendant from whom defendants 20 and 21 got a transfer and they, in their turn, assigned the properties to the 6th defendant who was in that manner in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Now these transactions relate only to items 1 and 2 in the plaint, item 1 being a paramba and item 2 being a building on that paramba. In this appeal we are concerned only with items 1 and 2. Upon this written statement of the 2nd defendant, certain new defendants were impleaded at the instance of the plaintiff. They were defendants 6 to 16. The 6th defendant filed a written statement referring to the fact that he was the owner of the properties in question and in possession as owner having derived his title from defendants 20 and 21 with an indemnity that should the title conveyed be found to be defective in any manner, the transferors would be liable to indemnify the transferee, the 6th defendant. 3. The 6th defendant also prayed that defendants 20 and 21 as also the 19th defendant from whom defendants 20 and 21 derived title, and some other parties may be impleaded as parties to the suit. Upon this written statement, the court asked the plaintiff whether he was prepared to implead these new parties. The plaintiff stated that he did not propose to implead them at his expense, but that he had no objection to their being brought in at the expense of the 6th defendant. Accordingly additional defendants 17 to 24 were brought on record. Defendants 25 to 39 are the legal representatives of defendants 6 and 10. 4. In a written statement filed by the plaintiff after the written statements of the 2nd and the 6th defendants were filed, we find the plaintiff setting up a new case. In the plaint the plaintiff' only case was that the properties sought to be sold belonged to the tarwad of defendants 1 to 4 which existed at a distinct entity. In a written statement filed by the plaintiff after the written statements of the 2nd and the 6th defendants were filed, we find the plaintiff setting up a new case. In the plaint the plaintiff' only case was that the properties sought to be sold belonged to the tarwad of defendants 1 to 4 which existed at a distinct entity. In the written statement filed, he has added a new ground, viz., that though there was a partition in the main tarwad from which defendants 1 to 4 parted away and the aforesaid Krishnan Neelakantan and some other parties formed a different 'Sakha' there was subsequently a re-union between the second defendant and his brother with the Sakha of Krishnan Neelakantan with the result that the properties of the Sakha of Krishnan Neelakantan came to the surviving members of that Sakha whose last surviving member was the 2nd defendant and that, though originally the properties hypothecated did not belong to the Sakha of defendants 1 to 4 as was first stated by the plaintiff, they nevertheless became available for the plaintiff for enforcement because the 2nd defendant who is one of the executants, subsequently acquired title thereto though in a different manner. 5. It will thus be seen that the 6th defendant and the other defendants deriving title to items 1 and 2 from Krishnan Neelakantan were brought in not as parties deriving title to the hypotheca from the mortgagors, but as parties having independent title thereto. 6. In a suit to enforce a mortgage, ordinarily the parties necessary are those interested in the properties primarily viz., the mortgagors or derivatively viz., the persons obtaining title to the mortgaged properties under the mortgagors subsequent to the mortgage by act of parties or by operation of law. Persons claiming title independently of the mortgagors that is to say claiming title paramount, are ordinarily not necessary or even proper parties to a mortgage suit. There may be cases where though a stranger may claim title to the properties independently of the mortgagor, the mortgagee may set up a case that the independent title-holder is merely a benamidar for the mortgagor, in which case though the title set up may appear apparently to be paramount, really it is not. There may be cases where though a stranger may claim title to the properties independently of the mortgagor, the mortgagee may set up a case that the independent title-holder is merely a benamidar for the mortgagor, in which case though the title set up may appear apparently to be paramount, really it is not. These cases apart, the case of a real title paramount would be beyond the scope of a suit to enforce a mortgage especially in view of the court fee paid by the plaintiff limited to a specific relief. 7. The plaintiff-respondent here raised a primary objection that this appeal filed by defendant 20 and 21 is incompetent because upon their own showing they had no interest in the properties S, whatever interest they had, they assigned to the 6th defendant. He also contended that the appellants in their written statements did not raise a plea in what manner they are interested in the properties. The answer to this objection is that the appellants having assigned the properties to the 6th defendant as their own not subject to the plaint or any other mortgage, with an indemnity that in the event of the title transferred proving to be ineffective or defective in any manner they would be answerable to the transferee to the extent of that defect. The plaintiff having agreed to bring on record defendants 20 and 21, he cannot now be heard to say that they have no interest in the suit. If they had interest at the time they were impleaded, it is not contended that they ceased to have that interest for any reason thereafter. In Devassy v. Variath (4 DLR 181 Cochin) Ananthakrishna Iyer, C.J., stated that, in a suit to enforce a mortgage, wherein a defendant was impleaded, though he had already parted with the title to the property before the suit, with an indemnity as in this case "the transferor had sufficient interest in that he had to protect himself against the enforcement of the clause of indemnity in favour of the transferee." Though that case related to the transfer of the property mortgaged, the principle is the same in this case also and therefore we are of opinion that appellants have sufficient interest. We find also that defendants 20 and 21 who came into the suit to fight the battle in the name of the 6th defendant can take advantage of the written statement filed by the 6th defendant in which case, the absence of a plea in their written statement will be immaterial. In this view the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiff-respondent to the maintainability of the appeal has to be over-ruled. 8. The question then arises as to whether the title paramount set up by the 6th defendant and by defendants 20 and 21 as aforesaid should be investigated in these proceedings. We consider that it would be improper to go into that question in this case as it does not appear to be either just or convenient. We would therefore delete from the judgment of the court below the portions thereof relating to the title paramount is set up by these defendants. The question of the title paramount is left open. 9. The plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for sale of the hypotheca, that means the sale of the right, title and interest of the mortgagors in the hypotheca as on the date of the mortgage. Such a decree is given to him. The decree will not affect any interest that the defendants setting up title paramount would be entitled to, independent of the mortgagors. 10. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. In the peculiar circumstances narrated above, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. The appellants would also be exonerated from the liability for costs in the trial court. In other respects the decree of the lower court is confirmed. Appeal partly allowed.