Lakshmikanta Jha, J.

1. The plaintiffs are me appellants. The appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage in which the mortgagee set up a cross-claim. The trial Court decreed the suit with mesne profits and allowed the claim of the defendant in part by passing a separate decree in his favour. The defendant thereupon preferred an appeal and the plaintiffs filed a cross-objection. The Court of appeal below allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the plaintiffs cross-objection.

2. One Dhautal Pandey had three sons, Amrit, Sakhi and Mewa. Amrit died leaving four sons, Mahangu, Chanarman, Gena and Bhagwat. Sakhi died leaving a widow, Mehesha Kuer. The case of the plaintiffs is that Sakhi and Mewa died in a state of jointness as members of a joint Mitakshara family and that the family is still joint. Gena died leaving a son Rambachan, who is plaintiff No. 2, and Bhagwat died leaving a son Sheobachan, who is plaintiff No. 1.

3. Mahangu, Gena and Mt. Mahesha Kuer executed a mortgage bond in favour of one Gauri Shanker Chaube, defendant No. 1 (referred to in this judgment as the defendant) on the 3rd February, 1916, for a sum of Rs. 4,606/-, the due date o