Horwill, J.

1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for redemption. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem. Defendant 1 opposed the suit on many grounds; but those with which we are concerned are: (1) that the transaction entered into between the plaintiff and defendant 1 was not a mortgage but a sale; (2) that in any event the matter is governed so far as a large portion of the hypotheca was concerned by Section 41, T. P. Act, and otherwise by estoppel, the plaintiff having held out defendant 1 as the ostensible owner of the property and allowed various portions of the property to be alienated, and (3) that the plaintiff is precluded from setting up his claim because he failed to put them forward in O.S. No. 604. I need not repeat the arguments of the learned District Munsif and the learned District Judge in their judgments. Exhibit A, the document in question, has been set out in full. The document is headed "conditional sale" and not "sale," from which one would understand a document which was to operate as a sale only upon a certain contingency. We find that the body of the document confirms this interpretation. The plaintif