Judgment G.N.Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner is the plaintiff of a redemption suit (title suit No. 4 of 1967) pending in the Court of the 1st Additional Munsif, at Motibari. The suit was instituted by him for redemption of two zerpeshgis both dated the 6th July, 1962, one for Rs. 400.00 in respect of Schedule I land and the other for Rs. 300.00 in respect of Schedule II land. Both these deeds were executed by Nathuni Mian, defendant No. 7, hi favour of Welayat Mian since deceased. The case of the plaintiff is that on the 7th September, 1964 Nathuni. Mian, defendant No. 7, had sold the equity of redemption in the mortgaged land the total area of which is 8 kathas 17 dhurs in village Banjaria to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1770/-. After the death of Welayat Mian the plaintiff tendered the mortgage money to his heirs, namely, defendant first party who declined to accept the mortgage money and gave up possession over the zarpeshgi land. Thereupon the plaintiff instituted the instant suit wherein he also impleaded defendants 4 to 6 as second party defendants on the allegation that it was in pursuance of collusion with them that the heirs of Welayat Mian had declined to accept the mortgage money tendered to them by the plaintiff. 2. Written statements were filed in the suit both by Nathuni Mian, defendant No. 7, and by defendants second party. Nathuni Mian, defendant No. 7 substantially supported the plaintiffs case. Defendant second party, however, set up a paramount title in the suit land in themselves. They alleged that Sakhawat, the father of Nathuni Mian, was the real owner of the property, by virtue of a purchase made by him in May, 1937 and on the 17th November, 1964 the said Sakhawat Mian had sold the suit land to defendants 4 to 6 under two sale deeds of that date. 3. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a petition for striking out the names of defendants 4 to 6 from the records of the suit. 3. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a petition for striking out the names of defendants 4 to 6 from the records of the suit. This prayer was made on the ground that defendants 4 to 6 had set up a paramount title over the suit land which was foreign to the scope of the plaintiffs suit which was a simple suit for redemption by the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Munsif on the 2nd February, 1971, this prayer of the plaintiff has been rejected substantially on the following ground: "The established principle is to shorten the number of litigations. Defendants 4 to 6 claim a right in the suit land and their claim should also be decided along with the present suit. This will be in conformity with the principles of equity and natural justice and at the same time will also minimise the multiplicity of litigations." 4. While I appreciate the anxiety of the learned Additional Munsif to minimise the multiplicity of litigations, I must point out that this can only be done in so far as it is in conformity with the established rules of law and procedure. In regard to redemption suit it is a well established principle that a question of paramount title in the mortgaged property cannot be gone into. I may recall in this context the following observation made by a Bench of this Court in Singesar Mahto V/s. Munari, AIR 1958 Pat 110 : "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 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 Cal 425 (B). 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." 5. In view of the legal position indicated above, I am unable to uphold the order of the learned Munsif. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct that the names of defendants 4 to 6 be struck off from the category of defendants in the title suit as prayed for by the plaintiff. 6. The application is accordingly allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.