JUDGMENT

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a snit for sale brought on the basis of a mortgage deed, dated the 21st of February 1893, purporting to hare been executed by two persons, Zanwar Husain and his mother, Musammat Sadar-un-nissa, in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, Pancham, According to the document Rs. 4,000 was the loan and it was secured on two classes of property. Firstly, pure Zemindari in Mauza Deoria and Chak Muhammad Panah, Perganah Jhusi, of the Allahabad District and 13 items of property which the mortgagors of held as mortgagees from other persons. Among these 13 items were two mortgages of property in Mauza Chintemanpar and Sidhaura. Oat of the sum of Rs. 4,000, Rs. 1,400 purported to have been paid in cash prior to the registration and Rs. 2,600 purported to have been left with the creditor for payment of certain debts due from the mortgagors to other persons. They were as follows:

Rs. 1,000 due to Nawaz Khan on account of his decree.

Rs. 700 due to Ilahi Bakhsh of Utraon.

Rs. 400 due to Mir Zahid Husain who held a mortgage of sir land in Mauza Deoria; and

Rs. 500 to Lala Janki Prasad, Banker of the City of Allahabad,

2. According to the terms entered in the document the interest was to be Rs. 1 per cent. per mensem and the executants stipulated to re-pay the loan in 12 years. They further stipulated that they would pay annually a sum of Rs. 500 on account of principal and interest. The interest at Rs. 12 per cent. per mensem for one year amounted to Rs. 480, so that this sum allowed for the payment of the annual interest and a little over. They stipulated that the amount thus paid annually should be set off against the interest and the balance should be credited towards the principal. Further on in the document the mortgagors stipulated that if in any year they were unable to pay the interest, the interest might be treated as principal and would carry interest at the rate of Rs. 1 per cent. per mensem. Further on in the deed they further stipulated that if there was any default in payment of the Rs. 500 per annum, the mortgagee was to have power, without waiting for the expiry of the stipulated period, to set aside all the other stipulations embodied in the document and to bring a suit in Court to realise the entire principal together with interest and costs from the parsons of the mortgagors and from the hypotheacted property. Musammat Sadar-un-nissa and Zauwar Husain are both dead and the persons who are now sued are their heirs. They pleaded in defense that the deed had not been executed by Zauwar Husain and Musammat Sadar-un-nissa. They pleaded that no consideration had passed; and they lastly pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. We may note here that it is an admitted fact that all the 13 items of mortgagee rights which were hypotheacted under the deed in suit have disappeared, that is, the original mortgagors have paid of the mortgages, but not to Pancham or any of the present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not made the original mortgagors of these properties parties to the present suit. The Court below has held that Rs. 3,000 out of the Rs. 4.000 entered in the deed as consideration was actually paid. It has further held that the deed was duly executed by Zauwar Husain and Musammat Sadar-un-nissa. It has held that the suit is barred by limitation.

3. The plaintiffs in their appeal urge:

That the Rs. 1,000 of consideration which the Court below has disallowed has been established. They further plead that the suit is not barred by limitation.

4. So far as the Rs. 1,000 of the consideration is concerned, the appeal has not been particularly strongly pressed. The learned Vakil for the appellants states that his clients will be quite satisfied if they can get a decree for Rs. 3,000 principal together with interest thereon by sale of the hypotheacted property. With regard to this item, therefore, we need not say mush, except that we agree with the Court below, that the appellants have fa