JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed to redeem a mortgage, dated the 18th of July 1898, and made by Hakim Wilayet Ali in favour of one Maharaj Gobardhan Das, the principal amount borrowed being the sum of Rs. 6,000. There is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the mortgage. The contest is that the plaintiffs say that they are entitled to redeem upon payment of the principal sum of Rs. 6,000, whilst on the other hand the defendants say that the amount due upon their mortgage has been duly and finally ascertained by a decree of this Court, dated the 1st of August 1910. This decree ascertains the amount due for principal, interest and costs at the sum of Rs. 20,270-11-0 with future interest at 1 per cent, per mensem. The defendants contend that the plaintiffs cannot redeem without paying this sum. The Court below has decided in favour of the defendants.

2. The fasts are a little complicated, but may nevertheless be shortly stated. The plaintiffs had another mortgage against Hakim Wilayet Ali affecting other property than that now in suit. They sued on foot of this mortgage, obtained a decree, sold the property and having exhausted their rights against the mortgage security, they applied for a decree u/s 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, so as to enable them to follow the other property of the judgment-debtor for the purpose of realising a large sum still unpaid. This decree they duly obtained, and in execution thereof they attached the property which it is now sought to redeem; and later on, on the 21st of March 1911 and the 21st of August 1911, purchased it themselves. We may mention that the attachment was made on the 12th of November 1907, although the actual sale did not take place until the dates just mentioned. In the meantime a suit on foot of the mortgage, which it is now sought to redeem, was instituted in February 1909. It is now necessary for a moment to refer to the particular nature of the mortgage. On the face of it, it is a possessory mortgage. It expressly provides that the possession should go aginst interest that the mortgagee should not be accountable for rents and profits, and on the other hand the mortgagor should not be liable for interest. Simultaneously, however, two other documents, namely a patta and a kabuliat, were executed and registered. These documents provided that the mortgagor should remain in possession as tenant to the mortgagee, paying a yearly rent which in fact was equal to 12 per cent per annum simple interest on the principal sum of Rs. 6,000. The mortgage was recited and there was a provision that rent in arrear should bear interest at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem. In the plaint the mortgagee set forth that the mortgagors had only paid 11/2 years' interest, and accordingly they claimed that the full principal sum was due together, with compound interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum after giving credit for the 11/2 years in which the rent was paid. The defence was that there was no liability in respect of interest, that the mortgagee could only sue for rent under the lease, and that this rent was in no way a charge on the property, that rent could only recovered in the Revenue Court, and that consequently the plaintiff was only entitled to sell the property to realise the principal sum of Rs. 6,000. The mortgagees on the other hand urged the Court to hold that the mortgage, patta and kabuliat all represented a single transaction and that the true intention was that, if the rent was not paid, it I should be a charge on the property realisable by sale in an ordinary mortgage suit. In short, the contention was that the transaction should be regarded as a simple mortgage with interest at 12 per cent, per annum. The Court of first instance decided in favour of the defendants and held that the plaintiffs were only entitled to the principal money secured. The plaintiffs appealed, again urging that on the