The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal arising out of a suit for partition. In this second appeal, this Court is concerned only with items 1 and 8 of the suit properties.

2. With reference to item No.1, as against the claim of the defendants that the plaintiffs’ suit was barred since Ex.A-6=(Ex.B-1) mortgage dated 211. 1089 ME (=211. 1914 A.D) in favour of the 1st defendant’s mother was not redeemed at all, the trial Court has held that suit item No.1 was not the subject matter of Ex.A-6 at all and has granted decree for half share therein to the plaintiffs. No doubt, the lower appellate Court did hot meet this finding of the trial court by any discussion, but it held that Ex.A-6 mortgage did not take effect and that, therefore, the defendants are not entitled to any right under the said mortgage. Thus holding, the lower appellate court concurred with the trial court with reference to item 1 and granted decree to the plaintiffs for the abovesaid half share therein.

3. Initially, the learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to paragraph 9 of the lower appellate court’s judgment and sought to contend that the lower appellate court also has deal