( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision against the decree of the learned District Judge, Lucknow, dated 11-13. 1948.

( 2 ) THE applicant Mt. Qaiyum-in-nisa was owner of grove No. 412 in qasba Malhiabad known as terhwa grove. She mortgaged it without possession with Mt. Hamid Jehan Begam on 8-9-1923, for Rs. 2000, with interest at 10 per cent. per annum. On 11-9-1923, she created a further charge on the property by borrowing another sum of Rs. 500 from Mt. Hamid Jehan Begam, the rate of interest being 10 per cent. per annum.

( 3 ) MT. Hamid Jehan Begam sold all her rights in the grove under the mortgage and the charge to mt. Bahali Begam on 27-2-1925. After some negotiations carried on by Maqbul Ahmad, son of the mortgagor applicant, the present opposite party, Rashidul Malik, bought all the rights of Mt. Bahali Begam for RS. 2600 on 8-11-1927. The applicant then apparently found it difficult to pay up the interest stipulated in the mortgage and the charge and made no payment of interest. Some negotiations started in September 1929, when Rashidul Malik demanded the return of his money and on 18-6-1930, was executed a sale-deed Ex. 5 by the applicant in favour of the opposite party.

( 4 ) FROM the recital in the sale-deed it appears that the amount due under the mortgage and charge of September 1923, was calculated and accounts were made up and Rs. 3251 were found due to the mortgagee Rashidul Malik. Parties agreed that only Rs. 3200 shall be paid; Rs. 2560 on the mortgage and Rs. 610 on the charge. Rupees 70 had been paid in cash to the mortgagor before execution of the sale-deed. The mortgaged grove was sold for RS. 3270 to the mortgagee. A condition was inserted in the sale-deed that if the applicant vendor paid back the entire sum of rs. 3270 at any time between 1941 and 1950, the vendee would recovery the property to her, but if the sum was not paid by 1950, then the right to demand reconveyance would be lost. It was also provided that if there was any claim to the grove, and in consequence the whole or any portion of it were lost to the vendee, he would be entitled to compensation from the vendor. On 26-5-1941, the applicant applied under Section 12, Agriculturists Belief Act, for redemption alleging that the transaction dated 18-6-1930, was not really a sale but was in fact a mortgage by conditional sale. She alleged that she was an agriculturist and the opposite party had made money by selling mango profits and had caused her loss by cutting several trees from the grove and further the profits from the grove were large and entire mortgage money had been paid off from the usufruct of the property. She, therefore, claimed redemption and delivery of possession without having to pay anything.

( 5 ) HER claim was resisted. It was said that the transaction was an absolute sale with a right of repurchase and not a mortgage by conditional sale. It was admitted that she is an agriculturist. It was denied that any income was derived from the sale of mango grafts or that any trees had been out or damaged. It was alleged that even if the transaction be one of mortgage, the income from the grove was much less than the interest payable at 4 1/2 per cent. It was also said that if the accounts could legally be reopened then the principal should be Rs. 2600 which he actually paid at the request of the applicant and that the transaction of 8-11-1927, by which he stepped into the shoes of Mt. Pahali Begam, the then mortgagee, was in substance a loan of Rs. 2. 600 to the applicant.

( 6 ) THE trial Court held that the transaction was a mortgage by conditional sale, that the transaction of 8-11-1927, was not an advance to the applicant, that the account would be reopened from the date of the first mortgage in 1923, that no income was derived by the opposite party from the sale of mango grafts, that the opposite party by cutting of certain trees of the grove had caused a loss of RS. 350 to the applicant and that the annual