Judgment 1. This appeal by defendant 2 is from the decision of the First Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, reversing the decision of the first court, and, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for redemption against defendant 1 and defendant 2, the present appellant, also. 2. Defendant 1 has not appealed against the decree for redemption passed against him in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The main point pressed, in support of the appeal, by Mr. Prem Lall is that defendant 2 claimed a paramount title, which was not in issue in the suit, and, therefore, the court of appeal below should not have investigated this question of Para-mount title of defendant 2, It was further contended that even if the court of appeal below decided to go into that question, the plaintiff should have been asked to amend his plaint, and, on such amendment the suit would have Keen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the first court because of the value of the property in suit, and, therefore, the plaintiff without paying ad valorem court fee on that valuation could not have got this question, of paramount title of defendant 2 determined by the courts below. These contentions of Mr, Prem Lall are well founded, and, must prevail. 4. What happened was this: Most. Sohania, mother of Munri, the plaintiff, executed a usufructuary mortgage on the 11th September, 1934, in favour of her brother Ramdhani and uncle Badri, On the 13th October, 1936, she executed ano her bond in favour of Bishundeyal, who is defendant 1, and, the mortgage money of the earlier bond of 1934 was left in deposit with him for redeeming it. 5. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Nathuni, husband of Most. Sohania, Singesar, defendant 2, the present appellant, who is the grandson of the brother of the grandfather of Sohanias husband, began to manage the affairs of Most. Sohania. The mortgagee, Bashu deyal, after taking the mortgage gave a portion of the mortgaged lands to defendant 2 in batai. The plaintiffs case was that defendants 1 and 2 are both in collusion, and, they are putting obstacles in the way of the plaintiffs in redeeming the mortgage, because defendant 1 is not accepting the mortgage money from her and giving up possession. On these allegations, the plaintiff brought the suit for redemption of the mortgage of 1936 against both the defendants. 6. On these allegations, the plaintiff brought the suit for redemption of the mortgage of 1936 against both the defendants. 6. The defence of defendant 2, with whom we are concerned, was, inter alia, that after the death of Mathuni, he married his widow Most. Sohania in sagai form, and, on account of this marriage, the other brothers of this defendant allowed him by amicable arrangement to remain in exclusive possession of Nathunis share in the joint family property. Defendant 2, therefore, claimed an independent and a paramount title in the suit lands, and prayed that the plaintiffs suit should, as such, be dismissed as against him. 7. The learned Munsif, who heard the suit in the first instance, held that the bond of 1936 remained inoperative; defendant 2 had been coming in possession of the mortgaged lands from before; and, therefore, defendant 1 could not get possession of the mortgaged property, and, as such, he refused to pay the consideration of the mortgage bond; and, thereafter, the plaintiff had no right to redeem. He also held that defendant 2 was in possession on his own behalf, and, therefore, he was not a necessary party to the suit, because his presence involved the determination of a question of paramount title. He further observed that since the plaintiff had not prayed for a declaration of title and recovery of possession against defendant 2, although defendant 2 had set up an adverse title against the mortgagor and mortgagee both, she was not entitled to a decree against defendant 2. He, therefore, dismissed the suit as against defendant 2. 8. On appeal by the plaintiff, (the court of appeal below took the view that in order to decide whether the mortgage had became operative and the plaintiff was entitled to redeem it, it was in- cumbent upon it to investigate the plea of defendant 2 also. It held that such a question of para-m6unt title could be gone into under justifying circumstances, and, therefore, it was necessary to adjudicate upon the title set up by defendant 2, and, ultimately, found that the mortgaged lands were in exclusive possession of Most Sohania in her own right; the independent title set up by Singesar, defendant 2, was not true; the mortgage bond had been acted upon; and as the lands belonged bo Most. Sohania, her daughter, the plain-tiff, was entitled to redeem the mortgage of 1938. Sohania, her daughter, the plain-tiff, was entitled to redeem the mortgage of 1938. The court of appeal below, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs suit for redemption both against defendants 1 and 2. 9. It is now well settled that the proper scope of a mortgage suit is to cut off the equity of redemption and to bar the rights of the mortgagor and those claiming under him; the only proper parties to such a suit are the mortgagor and the mortgagee and those who have acquired interest under them subsequent to the mortgage. It is not competent for the mortgagee to make as party defendant, one who claims adversely to the title of the mortgagor and mortgagee. He is a stranger to the mortgagee, has no connection with the mortgage, and as his adverse claim of title cannot in any way be affected by the mortgage suit, in which he has no interest, he cannot be made a party for the purpose of litigating such claim of title. 10. It is equally well established that although in an ordinary mortgage suit title paramount to and independent of the mortgagor is not a necessary issue and should as far as possible be excluded from the trial of a mortgage suit, but that is not an absolute principle which should apply to the circumstances of each case. Where the leaving of such an issue undetermined would lead to inconvenience or hardship, it is proper that it should be tried in a mortgage suit, and, therefore, if a defendant in a mortgage suit sots up a paramount title and without objection goes to trial upon that issue, neither party can afterwards say that the issue was irrelevant. 11. But it is also settled that in order to displace the prior title of such a defendant, the plaintiff must specifically allege in his plaint a distinct case against such a defendant, and, where the plaintiff in a mortgage action alleges a distinct case in the plaint in derogation of the priority which may be claimed by the defendant and seeks in his suit to displace that prior title and post-pone it to his own, it is incumbent upon the defendant to establish his priority; and if he fails to do so, he will not be allowed to raise that question in a subsequent suit of his own. There is no rule of law, however, that such a defendant is bound to set up as a defence that he has also a paramount title. If in such a suit, he does not submit his claim as holder of the paramount interest to the Court and invite the Court to decide the question of his priority, he will not be precluded from raising the question of his priority in a suit of his own; Ramautar Singh V/s. Ramsewak Lal, AIR 1951 Pat 352 (A), Koi Sahu V/s. Atul Krishna Ghosh, ILR 9 Pat 118: (AIR 1929 Pat 333) (B), Rameshwar Rai v. Harakh Lal Sahu, AIR 1942 Pat 226:ILR 20 Pat 841 (C). Zakir Raja V/s. Madhusudan Dass 4 Pat LW 417: (AIR 1918 Pat 356) (D), Bhu-ban Mohan Ghose V/s. Co-operative Hindusthan Bank Ltd., AIR 1925 Cal 973 (E), and, Radha Kishun V/s. Khurshed Hossain AIR 1920 PC 81 (2): ILR 47 Cal 662: 47 Ind App 11 (F). 12. Here the defendant 2 never invited the court to decide the question of his paramount title; on the other hand, he took the objection that as he held a paramount title in the suit lands, the suit as against him should be dismissed. The question of his prior title was not put into issue in the first court. The plaintiff, in her plaint, did not seek to displace the prior title of defendant 2, and, therefore, she did not set up any distinct case, nor, did she seek any relief as against defendant 2 in the shape of a declaration that he held no independent title in the suit land, and, therefore, she was entitled to possession as against him also. 13. It is true that the sole object of pleading is that each side may have an opportunity of bringing forward evidence appropriate to the issue, and, so long as this result is obtained an issue cannot be objected because not prominently raised id the first instance; but where it is not sought by the plaintiff to displace the prior title of such a defendant, and, this question is neither pleaded in the plaint, nor put into issue specifically it cannot be said that the court, in such circumstances, would be justified against the wishes of such a defendant to determine such a question and to adjudicate upon the paramount title of such a defendant. 14. 14. In my opinion, therefore, the court of appeal below has acted illegally in adjudicating upon the prior title of defendant 2. The proper procedure for the court of appeal below was to dismiss the suit as against defendant 2, as was done by the first court. 15. It is now well established that if adverse claims be allowed to be litigated in a mortgage suit, such claims may obviously be determined by a Court which would have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for their determination, if properly framed. The valuation of a suit to enforce a mortgage is dependent upon the amount claimed by the plaintiff, which may obviously have no relation to the value of the property in respect of which an adverse claim is set up. The only possible way to ensure that the property should not be wasted from the point of view of the mortgagors and the mortgagees would be to bring a declaratory suit against the defendant who claims a paramount and an independent title to a conclusion before this mortgage interest was sold: Brij Krishna Das V/s. Murli Rai 4 Pat LJ 703: (AIR 1920 Pat 656) (G), and, AIR 1925 Cal 973 (E), which followed Jagneswar Dutt V/s. Bhuban Mohan Mitra ILR 33 CM 425 (H). 16. In this view, of the legal position, therefore, in the present suit, which was purely a suit for redemption, and, in which the prior and independent title of defendant 2 was not Put in her pleading by the plaintiff nor in issue, the question of paramount title of defendant 2 could not be investigated, without amendment of the plaint, and without complying with the other legal requirements consequent upon the amendment of the plaint by the plaintiff. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the court of appeal be- low, as against defendant 2-appellant are set aside, and, those of the first court as against defendant 2 are restored, and, the suit as against defendant 2 is dismissed. The appellant will be entitled to his costs of this appeal.