Lord Sumner:-

In 1863 Debi Das lent Rs. 7,700 to Ram Baksh on a usufructuary mortgage of his half share in a mauza called Lodha Mai, in the district of Etah. Debi Das died a good many years ago, and the present appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit, are his representatives-in-interest. A suit was begun in 1877 for redemption of this mortgage, and a decree was made on payment of 6,988 rupees, which sum was brought into Court. Debi Das appealed on the ground that this sum was not enough, and it was increased by a further sum of Rs. 8,956. While the appeal was pending he had managed to take the money out of Court, and the mortgagors had then got possession. They paid, however, no more, and accordingly, in 1879 their redemption suit stood dismissed. Debi Das then applied to be, and was, replaced in possession, and, having sued for mesne profits during the time he was out of possession, he got a decree in 1881, in execution of which the Court sold the mortgagor's equity of redemption at auction. Debi Das being the buyer, was put into possession as full owner in 1883.

It might have been supposed that this was the end of the mortgage of 1863, but, strange as it may seem, this appeal is now brought to determine upon what terms the appellants, the representatives of Debi Das, are to be allowed to redeem it, as mortgagors some thirty years after he bought in the mortgagor's equity of redemption as mortgagee. This paradoxical result has come about as follows:-

Debi Das continued in possession of the property as owner till 1897, and as owner he mortgaged it in 1886 to Sagar Mal. There is no copy of this mortgage forthcoming. Debi Das got behind with his payments, and in 1897, on the application of Sagar Mal, the property was put up for sale. The respondents, the defendants in the suit, or their predecessors-in-interest, bought it and duly obtained possession.

The proclamation of sale was dated the 27th of February, 1895. Though Debi Das had brought the equity of redemption of the 1863 mortgage in 1881 and had had possession of the property since 1883, his name, from indifference or neglect, continued to be recorded in the revenue papers as mortgagee. This may account for the wording of the proclamation of sale. The entry in the column for the description of the property was

"zamindari property in mauza Lodha Mai, out of which the shares entered as holding Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are mortgaged with possession to Debi Das, under a mortgage-deed, dated the 5th of February, 1863."

The column headed "extent of interest of judgment-debtors in the property as far as it has been ascertained by the court" was filled up thus:

"(b) mortgagee right in a 7 biswa share, entered as holding No. 1 in the 10 biswa mahal, patti Debi Das; (c) mortgagee right in a 1 biswa, 9 biswansi, 15 kachwansi share entered as holding No. 2; (d) ditto, ditto, entered as holding No. 3."

These fractions, with another not included in the present proceedings, make up the half share originally mortgaged by Ram Bakhsh. The application for execution of the decree for sale had contained a "specification of the property sought to be sold by auction" in similar terms and the list of bids and the sale certificate, dated the 2nd of August, 1897, followed the same formula. It certified that the respondents' predecessor was declared to be the purchaser of property, specified as "mortgagee rights in holdings Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the 10-biswa mahal, patti, Debi Das." The documents were all in regular form. There is nothing to show that there was anything in the mortgage to Sagar Mal to account for this mode of describing the subject-matter of the sale, and in the proceedings below Sagar Mal's mortgage is stated to have been secured on the 10 biswa share, of which Debi Das had become proprietor in 1881. Most probably it was the result of slavishly following the entry in the revenue papers, which had ceased for many years past to represent the true position of Debi Das towards the property.

The present sui