1. The second appeal arises from a redemption suit. The appellant was impleaded as a respondent before the lower appellate court and in second appeal his counsel has urged before us three points, namely, (i) the lower appellate court went wrong in allowing redemption when both that court and the trial court had found that the suit was brought prematurely; (ii) that the lower appellate courts's order regarding mesne profits is wrong and (iii) the order as to costs is also wrong.

2. The suit giving rise to the second appeal was brought in 1119 but the courts below have concurrently found that the mortgagee was entitled to remain in possession till 1.7.1127, that is, 12 years from the date they paid renewal fee to the jenmi. The period, however, expired while the appeal was pending before the lower appellate court and that court therefore permitted redemption in reversal of the trial court's decree refusing redemption. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that it was improper on the part of the lower appellate court to have done that. Every other contention of the mortgagee to resist the claim for redemption was repelled by both the courts and in a case where no injusti