Judgment : This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Sub Court, Sivaganga made in A.S.No. 19 of 1982 on 8. 1983. 2. The facts of this case are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption, alleging as follows: The property called “Subramania Voikkal” is situate in the village of Vanthavasi, Hamlet of Enapuram, Sivaganga Taluk. The property originally belonged to the plaintiffs brother Alagarsamy Servai. On 5. 1965, he mortgaged the property in favour of Meenakshi, mother of defendants 1 to 6 for a sum of Rs.500. The mortgagee died in 1976. The suit property is now enjoyed by defendants to 7. Alagarsamy Servai died on 30.12.1965, leaving his mother Arumugathammal and his sister, the plaintiff. Arumugathammal succeeded to the properties of Alagarsamy Servai and enjoyed them till her death in 1966. After her death the plaintiff is enjoying the property. She is entitled to redeem the suit property. The period of redemption fixed has already expired. Notice was issued on 7. 1977. demanding redemption of the mortgage. In view of Sec.9 of the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 and Act 13 of 1980, the mortgage stands discharged. Hence the suit. 3. Defendants 1 and 4 to 6 filed their written statement, adopted by the other defendants. They contended thus: The plaintiff is put to strict proof that she is the legal heir of Alagarsamy Servai. Alagarsamy Servai had a son by name Ramiah Servai, who is residing in Burma. Alagarsamy has other close pangalies. During the life time of Alagarsamy Servai, the plaintiffs son Somalingam demanded him to transfer some of the properties in his name. Alagarsamy was not willing and he was murdered by Somalingam. The plaintiff is of unsound mind for a long time. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff is not the heir of Alagarsamy. She has no cause of action. 4. A reply statement was filed by the plaintiff contending that Alagarsamy had no son and that he did not leave pangalies. The plaintiff’s son never demanded any property from Alagarsamy. Alagarsamy attempted to assault the plaintiff’s son in an intoxicated condition. In self-defence he was pushed down by the plaintiff’s son and as a result the said Alagarsamy was hit by a water pipe and expired. The plaintiff’s son did not murder Alagarsamy. The plaintiff is of sound mind. The plaintiff’s son never demanded any property from Alagarsamy. Alagarsamy attempted to assault the plaintiff’s son in an intoxicated condition. In self-defence he was pushed down by the plaintiff’s son and as a result the said Alagarsamy was hit by a water pipe and expired. The plaintiff’s son did not murder Alagarsamy. The plaintiff is of sound mind. After the death of Alagarsamy and after the death of her mother, the plaintiff succeeded to the estate. 5. Before the District Munsif of Sivaganga, on behalf of she plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and four other withnesses. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked on the plaintiff’s side, The defendants examined two witnesses and no documents were marked on their side. 6. The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, !he plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Sub Court. Sivaganga. The Subordinate Judge. Sivaganga allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence this second appeal by the defendants. 7. The only objection raised by learned Counsel for the appellants is as to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff being a person of unsound mind, is not entitled to redemption. Therefore, the only point for determination in this appeal is Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff, a person of unsound mind, through guardian, next friend for redemption, is not maintainable? 8 The point. Though in the suit, other contentions were raised, they are not pressed and the only point that now survives for consideration is about the maintainability of the suit by a person, who is of unsound mind. 9. The finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff Kaliammal is a person of unsound mind, is not disputed. Originally the suit filed by her without she being represented by any guardian. It was in the course of defence, a stand was taken by the defendants that the plaintiff was of unsound mind. An issue was framed by the trial court under issue No.3. The trial court has held that when the court examined P.W. 1 the plaintiff previously, she was found to be sane, but after remand it was conceded by P.W.4 that P.W.I the plaintiff is not of sound mind for the past six months. Therefore, the plaint was amended and the plaintiff’s son was impleaded as next friend of the plaintiff. The trial court has held that when the court examined P.W. 1 the plaintiff previously, she was found to be sane, but after remand it was conceded by P.W.4 that P.W.I the plaintiff is not of sound mind for the past six months. Therefore, the plaint was amended and the plaintiff’s son was impleaded as next friend of the plaintiff. Therefore, the mental condition of the plaintiff that she is of sound mind, is in a way established and the findings of the courts below in that regard are not challenged at all. .10. Before the amendment of the Transfer of Property Act, as it stood then, in Sec.91, persons who may sue for redemption were set out. Originally the Section contained Clauses (a) to (g). Clause (e) referred to lunatics. Therefore, before the amendment of the said section, a lunatic was competent to sue for redemption of mortgage only through a curator or committee. But clauses (d) and (e) have since been deleted. According to Sec.91 as it stands now besides the mortgagor any person who has any interest in or charge upon the property mortgaged, any surety for the payment of the mortgage-debt or any creditor of the mortgagor who has in a suit for the administration of his estate obtained a decree for the sale of the mortgaged property are competent to sue for redemption. The term ‘mortgagor’ would include his heirs and legal representatives as well Therefore, when a mortgagor can sue for redemption it follows an heir or legal representative of the mortgagor can as well institute a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property. That the plaintiff Kaliammal is a heir of deceased Alagarsamy, is not challenged. The concurrent findings of the courts below in that regard is neither attacked, not sought to be attacked. Therefore, it follows that Kaliammal is a heir or legal representative of the deceased Alagarsamy Servai. When that position is clear, it follows that she is entitled to sue for redemption. .11. The trial court has taken the view that in view of the deletion of clause (e) the right to sue for redemption by lunatic is taken away. It is not so. The next friend of lunatic or guardian can sue to redeem the property on behalf of the lunatic. .11. The trial court has taken the view that in view of the deletion of clause (e) the right to sue for redemption by lunatic is taken away. It is not so. The next friend of lunatic or guardian can sue to redeem the property on behalf of the lunatic. The view of the trial court is clouded by the fact that P.W.1’s son was convicted for murder of Alagarsarny Servai and thus he is disqualified to represent the plaintiff. But, this view of the trial court was not accepted by the appellate court. The finding that merely because the legal representative and next friend and guardian of the lunatic was convicted for the murder of Alagarsarny the next friend is not competent to file the suit for redemption, in my opinion, is not well-founded one. The plaintiff’s son is, if at all, prevented by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act from claiming to be an heir to the property of Alagarsarny Servai. But the right of the plaintiff herein to inherit the properties of Alagarsarny Servai is independent. She became the heir in her own right and as such she became entitled to inherit the properties of Alagarsarny Servai. She is not claiming through her son, she filed the suit for redemption in her own name. The suit was originally decreed. After the suit was decreed an appeal was preferred by the defendants. On appeal, the matter was remanded back to the trial court. After remand, certain witnesses were examined and in the course of such examination it came to light that the plaintiff has not been of sound mind for some time immediately prior to the date of remand i.e., because unsound of mind after during the pendency of appeal. Therefore, the plaint was amended to show that the plaintiff is represented by her next friend and guardian, her son. He was accordingly permitted to prosecute the suit. Therefore, this is not a suit laid by the son of Kaliammal, claiming redemption. Kaliammal had independently, on her own right, became entitled to the property as a heir. She laid the suit for redemption. He was accordingly permitted to prosecute the suit. Therefore, this is not a suit laid by the son of Kaliammal, claiming redemption. Kaliammal had independently, on her own right, became entitled to the property as a heir. She laid the suit for redemption. Only at a subsequent stage, after the disposal of the suit by the trial court, Kaliammal became mentally unsound, with the result that after remand, the plaint was amended and her son was brought on record as the next friend and guardian of his mother with a view to prosecute the suit further. If any right is claimed by the son of Kaliammal then alone the question of Kaliammal’s son claiming any right to the property of Alagarsamy would arise. In view of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the question of disqualification would arise only as regards Kaliammal’s son to lay any claim for the properties of Alagarsamy. But, that is not the position here. Therefore, rightly, the appellate court disagreed with the conclusion of the trial court in that regard. 12. Even otherwise. Sec.91 of the Transfer of Property Act, as it stood before amendment of the year 1929 besides the mortgagor, empowered certain other persons also to redeem or institute a suit for redemption. Under clause (e) it was specifically provided that the committee or other legal curator of a lunatic or idiot mortgagor on behalf of such lunatic or idiot, institute a suit for redemption. Therefore, even under the old Act, a suit was maintainable on behalf on idiot or lunatic, provided it is by the committee or other legal curator of the lunatic. Now, in view of the amendment Act 20 of 1929 clauses (d) and (e) of Sec.91 have been deleted as superfluous. O.32, Rule 15, C.P.C. is to the effect that Rules 1 to 14 shall, so far as may be, apply to persons adjudged, before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons, who though not so adjudged, are found by the court on enquiry to be incapable by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued. 0.32, C.P.C. refers to suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind. 0.32, C.P.C. refers to suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind. The provisions of Rules 1 to 14 of 0.32, C.P.C. are held to be applicable to persons of unsound mind so adjudged before or during the pendency of the suit. Here in this case, Kaliammal has been adjudged as a person of unsound mind during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, 032 provides the procedure for a suit by or against a minor or a person of unsound mind. Rule 3(1) of 0.32, C.P.C. specifies that any person who is of sound mind and has attained majority may act as next friend of a minor or as his guardian for the suit. The only proviso is that if the interest of a such person is adverse to that of the minor he cannot act as the next friend or guardian. Here in this case, admittedly the son of Kaliammal Somalingam is not of unsound mind. He has attained the age of majority. Therefore, he is a fit person to be appointed as guardian or next friend of a person, who is of unsound mind. Hence, as he is a fit person to be appointed as guardian or next friend of a minor, it is competent for him to maintain a suit for redemption. The Code of Civil Procedure sets out the procedure and the Transfer of Property Act deals with transfer of properties. Sec.91 of the Transfer of Property Act only lays down that besides the mortgagor, certain other persons are entitled to institute a suit for redemption. They are persons who have interest or charge upon the property mortgaged. It also includes persons who have any interest in the property. She is a legal representative of the mortgagor. A mortgagor is entitled to redeem or sue for redemption. Therefore, a heir of a mortgagor is equally entitled to redeem or claim redemption. Hence the order of the lower appellate court holding that the suit filed by the next friend of Kaliammal, a person of unsound mind, is maintainable is in my opinion, in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, Code of Civil Procedure and the Hindu Succession Act. The finding of the trial court is, therefore, erroneous one. Hence the order of the lower appellate court holding that the suit filed by the next friend of Kaliammal, a person of unsound mind, is maintainable is in my opinion, in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, Code of Civil Procedure and the Hindu Succession Act. The finding of the trial court is, therefore, erroneous one. It failed to take into account the ambit of the disqualification of a person who became a heir and set out in the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. It also failed to consider the fact that the next friend himself is a person, who has attained majority and is of sound mind and, therefore, entitled to represent another and file a suit. The plaintiff is a heir of the mortgagor. She claims a right in the property not through the act of her son, but independently on her right as the heir of the deceased Alagarsamy. The trial court has failed to take into consideration these aspects. Therefore, rightly the appellate court has taken the view that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. Hence I answer this point holding that notwithstanding the deletion of Sec.91(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, a suit by a lunatic person can be maintained for redemption of a mortgage through a next friend or guardian and that the suit is, therefore, maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. 13. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with costs. Confirming the judgment and decree of Sub Court, Sivaganga in A.S.No.19 of 1992, dated 3. 1983.