Lakshmikanta Jha, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage and for possession with masne profits. Both the courts below have decreed the suit; hence this second appeal by the defendants.

2. The plaintiff executed a registered usufructuary mortgage bond dated 11-7-1932, for a sum of Rs. 122/- in favour of one Harihar Tewari, since deceased, ancestor of the defendants mortgaging 3.83 acres of ralyati land, and put the mortgagee in possession thereof, in lieu of interest, from the beginning of Asarh, 1339 Fasli (June, 1932). Under the terms of the mortgage bond, the mortgagee stipulated that

"the payment of rent to the malik in respect of the said rehan property is the concern of the said rehander"

and in the description of the property at the foot of the mortgage bond it was stated that the annual rent including cesses was Rs. 19/12/3 (Ext. A.).

3 While the mortgagee was in possession, the landlords brought two suits for arrears of rent in respect of the mortgaged land and put up the holding to sale in execution of the decree, but the entire decretal amounts were deposited by the mortgagee (vide chalans Exts. B to B2) and the sales were averted.

4. According to the defendants, the landlords instituted the two rent suits, claiming rent at an enhanced jama of Rs. 23/7/3 and the mortgagee (Harihar) deposited the landlords dues under the two decrees in order to protect his own interest. It is alleged that the plaintiff was asked to reimburse the defendants; and on her refusal to do so, the sons of Harihar (two of whom are defendants 1 and 2) instituted a money suit against the plaintiff and her son in 1941 for recovery of the excess amount and an ex parte money decree (Ext. E) was obtained, and as the decree was not satisfied the mortgaged land was sold in execution of the money decree and auction-purchased by the sons of Harihar themselves.

The plaintiff however, brought the suit for redemption, pure and simple, without any prayer for setting aside the court sale. Her allegation is that the money payable under the mortgage bond in suit was offered to the defendants, and on their refusal it was deposited in court and a notice was duly served on them, but in spite of the notice they did not give up possession. She has, therefore, claimed recovery of possession with mesne profits on redemption.

5. The defendants have resisted the suit and their case is that the plaintiffs right of redemption has been extinguished by reason of the sale of the land in suit held in execution of the money decree obtained by them. According to them, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim either redemption or recovery of possession or mesne profits because the court sale in execution of the money decree stands unreversed and there is no averment in the plaint that the court sale is vitiated by any fraud.

6. The decrees for rent alleged to have been obtained by the landlords have not been filed. The chalans (Exts. B to B2), the sale certificate (Ext. C) and the writ of delivery of possession (Ext. D) filed by the defendants show that the jama of the holding, inclusive of cess, was only Rs. 19-12-3. The learned Subordinate Judge has, on a consideration of the entire evidence, oral and documentary, held in agreement with the trial court, that the plaintiff had no knowledge either of the suits instituted by the landlords or of the money suit instituted by the mortgagee. His finding is that under the mortgage bond Harihar was Bound to pay the rent himself, that by making the deposit of the decretal dues of the landlords, the mortgagee discharged his own liability, and that the claim of the defendants to be reimbursed was dishonest. He has accordingly held that the decree and sale was fraudulent.

7. The sale of the mortgaged land in dispute was held by a court of competent jurisdiction, but on the finding of the court of appeal below, as also of the court of first instance, the decree and the sale held thereunder, w