V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 161 of 1980 on the file of the principal Munsiff, Kundapura against the judgment and decree dated 22-6-2001 passed by the civil Judge (Senior Division), Kundapura, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial court dated 9-12-1986. ( 2 ) THE deceased-respondent was the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as in the suit. ( 3 ) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff for redemption and re-conveyance of the mortgaged properties. The properties had been mortgaged under a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 2-8-1969. The plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from the mortgagor, Appanna under a sale deed dated 18-1-1975. The defendant resisted the suit denying the plaint averments. It is stated that there is no cause of auction for the suit and that plaintiff has no right to seek redemption of the properties. It is claimed that the properties are in possession of defendant's son sridhara Shetty on chalgeni right and he has claimed occupancy rights from the Land Tribunal. It is pleaded that the remedy, if any, is under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable. It is further stated that since the tenant is not impleaded, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Hence, the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and the suit was taken up for trial. Parties adduced evidence and produced documents in support of their case. Upon consideration of the same, the Trial Court decreed the suit. The appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the same this second appeal is filed. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the defendant/appellant contends that both the Courts below have not considered Ex. D. 1 the registered Karaar dated 6-4-1921. The contention canvassed is that the mortgagor has no right to execute the sale deed giving right for redemption of the mortgage. ( 5 ) I have gone through the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The findings are concurrent. D. 1 the registered Karaar dated 6-4-1921. The contention canvassed is that the mortgagor has no right to execute the sale deed giving right for redemption of the mortgage. ( 5 ) I have gone through the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The findings are concurrent. Issue 1 framed by the Trial Court pertains to title of the plaintiff to the properties to redeem the same. The plaintiff claims title through Appanna Hegde who executed the usufructuary mortgage in favour of one Sadananda Shetty. Defendant also claims to have purchased a portion of the properties from Sadananda Shetty. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly held that the defendant can not deny the title of Appanna Hegde and that of the plaintiff. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that while the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor, the defendant stepped into the shoes of the mortgagee. Since the plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from the original mortgagor under Ex. P. 2, the Trial Court was justified in holding that plaintiff has the right to file the suit for redemption. The Trial Court was also justified in holding that defendant failed to prove that the mortgage of the suit schedule properties was void or invalid. ( 7 ) THE stand taken by the defendant that the properties are tenanted and they are in possession of his son Sridhara Murthy under chalgeni; that the properties stood vested in the State Government and hence the remedy, if any, is under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and not under the transfer of Property Act, are all wholly untenable. The plaintiff has produced Ex. P. 5, the certified copy of the order of the Land Tribunal rejecting the tenancy application of defendant's son. The Land Tribunal found that neither the name of defendant's son nor his elders found in the r. T. Cs. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that the properties are not in possession of sridhara Shetty and that he is not the chalgeni tenant. The suit was not bad for non-joinder of him as he was not a necessary nor proper party to the suit. The plea of the defendant in this regard is wholly untenable in law. ( 8 ) THE properties purchased by the defendant were mortgaged to Sadananda Shetty. The suit was not bad for non-joinder of him as he was not a necessary nor proper party to the suit. The plea of the defendant in this regard is wholly untenable in law. ( 8 ) THE properties purchased by the defendant were mortgaged to Sadananda Shetty. The mortgagee had no right to sell the properties in favour of the defendant. On the other hand, appanna Hegde, who mortgaged the properties to Sadananda has given the right of redemption of equitable mortgage to the plaintiff. To enforce the said right the plaintiff filed the suit for redemption. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. ( 9 ) THE first Appellate Court re-appreciated the documentary and oral evidence and rightly concurred with the findings and reasons of the Trial Court. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration and the concurrent findings of the Courts below do not warrant interference. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.