JUDGMENT:- This second appeal by the plaintiff Dhiren Bailung raises some interesting questions of law bearing on the interpretation of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Sections 3 and 59 of the Transfer of Property Act as also the interplay, if any, of the two sets of the sections.

2. Dhiren Bailung filed a suit on 31-3-1963 against Sashi Konwar and Paniram Konwar, besides others, claiming a decree for possession of 9 bighas and odd of land in his capacity as usufructuary mortgagee. He also claimed a money decree for a sum of Rs.1,000/-representing the damages suffered by him for deprivation of the possession of the mortgaged land, apart from another small sum of Rs.127.43. It was alleged in the plaint that Sashi and Paniram, who are real brothers, had mortgaged the land with the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.930/- by a registered deed dated 12-4-1960, and that in terms of the mortgage agreement interest on the mortgage money was to balance the produce of the land of which possession was made over to him (the plaintiff) but the payment of land revenue was the liability of the mortgagors. The land revenue on the mortgaged land having not been paid by the two mortgagors, the Go