JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendant's Second Appeal from a preliminary decree in a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The appellant was. according to the plaint allegations, transferee of a one-fourth share in the mortgagee rights front Sntl. Khudaija Bibi. He alone contested the suit. The suit was filed on the 12th Aug. 1957 and the age of one of the plaintiffs, Cunotey Lal who was originally the plaintiff No. 4, was given as twelve years and he was described as a minor under the guardianship of his father Badri Prasad who was the first plaintiff. Now Chhotey Lal appears to have sold his rights to the appellant by a sale-deed dated the 30th Aug, 1962 during the pendency of the suit. This sale in his favour was obtained by the appellant obviously as an additional plea for resisting the passing of a decree for redemption of the mortgage. Two issues, namely, issues Nos. 9 and 10 were raised by the trial Court consequent upon the sale : "9. Whether Chhotely Lal plaintiff No. 3 sold his l/3rd share in the property in suit to defendant No. 2 on 30-8-62 for Rs. 500/- as alleged in the written statement? If so, to what effect?" "10. Whether Chhotey Lal plaintiff No. 3. was a minor on 30-8-62? If so. to what effect?" 2. It may here be noticed that Chhotey Lal was impleaded as plaintiff No. 3 under the guardianship of his father Badri Prasad who was plaintiff No. 1. On a consideration of the evidence on the record, the trial court held that Chhotey Lal was a minor when he executed the sale-deed in the appellant's favour and that the sale was void and of no effect. Also negativing the other contentions raised by the defendant appellant, the trial Court decreed the suit for redemption of the mortgage dated the 15th Mar., 1913, on payment of Rs. 1,000/-only with costs to the plaintiffs, allowing them six months time to pay the same. The appellant appealed in the district Court from the said preliminary decree for redemption and the only point urged by him before the lower appellate Court was that Chhotey Lal was wrongly held to be a minor on the date of the sale. The point did not. however, appeal to the lower appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed. 3. The appellant appealed in the district Court from the said preliminary decree for redemption and the only point urged by him before the lower appellate Court was that Chhotey Lal was wrongly held to be a minor on the date of the sale. The point did not. however, appeal to the lower appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed. 3. The only point pressed before me by Mr. Sankatha Ral, learned counsel for the appellant, is that Chhotey Lal did not raise any objection to the validity of sale that was made by him. he continued to be a party to the suit and it was not open to the other plaintiffs to contend that the sale deed executed by Chhotey Lal was invalid for having been executed by him during his minority. The finding that Chhotey Lal was a minor on the date of the sale was also challenged. The age of Chhotey Lal has been described as twelve years in the plaint which bears the date 9th Aug., 1957 although it was filed on the 12th Aug., 1957. Calculating the age of Chhotey Lal on that basis, the trial court recorded a finding that his age was seventeen years and sixteen days on the date of the sale. That does, on the face of it, appear to be incorrect, for 12th Aug. 1945 was surely not the date of birth of the minor Chhotey Lal. According to the horoscope, that was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, Chhotey Lai's date of birth was 5th Dec. 1945 which means that Chhotey Lal was not yet twelve years of age, when the suit was filed on the 12th Aug. 1957. Instead of relying on the interested testimony of P. W. 1 Rajnath, in a matter like this for the sole purpose of defeating a point raised by the appellant on the basis of a registered sale deed executed by Chhotey Lal the Court ought to have examined Chhotey Lal himself before deciding whether the sale-deed was to be given effect to. The matter was really not a matter which affected the rights of the parties on the date of the suit. It was a matter, which arose during the pendency of the suit, and under O. 22 R. 10 of the Civil P. C., the Court had a discretion in the matter. The matter was really not a matter which affected the rights of the parties on the date of the suit. It was a matter, which arose during the pendency of the suit, and under O. 22 R. 10 of the Civil P. C., the Court had a discretion in the matter. If the Court decided not to recognise the transfer that was made during the pendency of the suit it would have refused to give effect to it on that basis and to continue with the suit, as if the transfer had not been made, but surely the sale-deed executed by Chhotey Lal and duly registered could not have been given a go-bye in this manner. If Chhotey Lal was a minor on the date of the sale and deliberately defiauded the appellant by executing the sale-deed, the appellant could obtain compensation in a regular suit. Under the circumstances, the matter should not have been decided in the way it was decided in the present suit. It should have been open to the appellant to establish his claim against Chhotey Lal on the basis of the sale-deed by a separate suit. Mr. Sankatha Rai also challenged the findings of the two Courts below that Chhotey Lal was a minor on the 30th Aug. 1962. 4. However, on going through the record, it was found that Chhotey Lal had originally sued through his father Badri Prasad as next friend. The plaint was amended on the death of Badri Prasad, under the orders of the trial court on the 7th Jan. 1960, and in place of Badri Prasad, the name of Raj Nath, brother was substituted as the next friend of Chhotey Lal. The suit continued, and according to the date of birth of Chhotey Lal as put forth by Raj Nath, who became the first plaintiff after the death of Badri Prasad, which was the 5th Dec. 1945, Chhotey Lal obviously must have attained majority on the 5th Dec. 1963. The surprising part is that Bankey Lal the middle brother, whose age was given as seventeen years on the date of the institution of the suit, continued to be shown as a minor on the 7th Jan. 1960 although, according to his age, as given in the plaint, he must have attained majority by that date. Raj Nath obviously had no authority to represent Bankey Lal on the 7th Jan. 1960 although, according to his age, as given in the plaint, he must have attained majority by that date. Raj Nath obviously had no authority to represent Bankey Lal on the 7th Jan. 1960 because Bankey Lal had attained majority by that time. Raj Nath's authority to represent Chhotey Lal also came to an end on the 5th Dec. 1963. According to R. 12 of 32 of the Civil P. C. it was incumbent on the minor plaintiffs to elect on attaining majority whether they wished to proceed with the suit. They did not obviously do anything of the kind and the plaint continued to show Bankey Lal and Chhotey Lal as minors even on the date on which the suit was decreed i. e. on the 24th April, 1967. The suit was a suit for redemption of the mortgage and the proper representation of each one of the mortgagors was necessary for the maintainability of the suit. So far as Chhotey Lal was concerned, Raj Nath had no right to represent him after the 5th Dec. 1963 or on the date when the decree was passed. Chhotey Lalhad obviously repudiated the suit for redemption by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant appellant who was one of the mortgagees. Whether that sale-deed was valid or invalid is a question which has not yet been properly tried. It has been only incidentally gone into. 5. Under all these circumstances, I think the suit must fail by reason of the fact that all the mortgagors ceased to be properly represented after Bankey Lal had died and Chhotey Lal, the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, had attained majority. 6. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The decree under appeal is set aside and the suit is dismissed; but in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.