Judgment :- 1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit was for redemption of a mortgage. The only point that arises for consideration in this second appeal is as to whether the mortgagor is liable to pay the value of improvements claimed by the 1st defendant. The trial court held that there were improvements to the extent of Rs. 632-13-3 which the mortgagor plaintiff was liable to pay at the time of redemption. There was an appeal to the District Court of Anjikaimal. The then Temporary Additional District Judge disallowed the value of improvements which was the main point pressed in appeal. The view taken by him is that in a prior suit which was filed by the present first defendant as plaintiff for eviction of defendants 4 and 6 who were his tenants in respect of the suit property, when a contention was raised by defendants 4 and 6 and they were entitled to the value of improvements, the present first defendant as plaintiff denied that there was any liability to pay for improvements. At the trial of that suit the issue that was framed regarding the value of improvements in that case was not pressed and, therefore, the court passed a decree in eviction without making any provision for payment of the value of improvements. This appears from the records. 2. The lower appellate court in the present case referred to this incident and relying upon the authority of the case reported in 1123 Cochin at page 606 holds that the present first defendant must not be permitted "to blow hot and cold by the same breath." It is difficult to understand why any authority is needed for establishing such a proposition. However the learned Additional Judge has quoted the authority. The question is whether the decision is attracted in the present case. It will be seen that in the earlier litigation the present first defendant did not deny that there were any improvements made on the property. He denied liability to pay for improvements and when the case came up for trial, the tenants who wanted to claim the value of improvements did not press their claim. A contention that a a person is not liable to pay for improvements does not necessarily imply a denial that improvements were made. He denied liability to pay for improvements and when the case came up for trial, the tenants who wanted to claim the value of improvements did not press their claim. A contention that a a person is not liable to pay for improvements does not necessarily imply a denial that improvements were made. It may be due to other reasons which it is not necessary to specify at this stage. Moreover, the present plaintiff was impleaded in that suit as a pro forma party against whom no relief was claimed. 3. In the circumstances, the question is whether there is any legal impediment to the first defendant claiming the value of improvements when the mortgage in his favour is sought to be redeemed. There is certainly no case of estoppel made out, because it cannot be said that any one was affected to his prejudice as a result of the denial made by the first defendant in the prior suit that he was not liable for the value of improvements. It is not a case of res judicata because the present plaintiff was impleaded in the earlier suit purely as pro forma party. The law on the point is considered in Mulla's Commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure (11th Edition) at page 64 where the relevant authorities are all collected in the foot-note at page 65. The learned author lays down the proposition of law in these two sentences: "A party may be joined as a defendant in a suit merely because his presence is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the question involved; see 0.1 R.10(2) and S.32 of the Code of 1882. In such a case no relief is sought against him and the matter in issue in the suit is not in issue between him and any other party, an cannot, therefore, be res judicata against him". It will thus be seen that there was no legal impediment to the contention urged on behalf of the first defendant in the courts below that he was entitled to be paid the value of improvements. There is a finding by the trial court as to what the improvements are which were not there when the mortgage was executed. The learned District Munsiff has also assessed the value of those improvements. There is no objection raised to this valuation. There is a finding by the trial court as to what the improvements are which were not there when the mortgage was executed. The learned District Munsiff has also assessed the value of those improvements. There is no objection raised to this valuation. Nor is there any contention raised that the first defendant is not entitled to the value of improvements in his capacity as mortgagee. The only contention is the one that found favour with the lower appellate court namely that he has been trying to blow hot and cold by the same breath. This is based upon the pleadings in the earlier litigation O.S. No. 889/119 which we have carefully considered and which we have pointed out will not stand in the way of the claim made in he present suit for the value of improvements by the first defendant. In /these circumstances, the decision of the lower appellate court must be set aside and that of the District Munsiff restored. The appellant will have his costs here and in the courts below. Allowed.