JUDGMENT

1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are brief. A suit for redemption of property, which had been usufructuarily mortgaged, was brought in the year 1889. A decree was passed ordering the mortgagor to pay in the amount due within a fixed period. The decree went on further to order that if the money was not paid, the property would be sold. Some months after the date fixed by the decree, the mortgagor applied to the Court to be put in possession of the property and tendered the amount due. The Court rejected the application as the tender had not been made within the time limited by the decree. After this, no step was taken by either party. The mortgagee did not come to Court and ask for a final order for sale of the property u/s 93 of the Transfer of Property Act, which then applied. The present suit for redemption was brought by the mortgagor. It was dismissed by the Court of first instance, but on appeal the District Judge remanded the suit for decision on the merits. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of the appellants stress is laid on the rulings in Nakta Ram v. Chiranji Lal 7 A.L.J. 185, 5 Ind. Cas. 269, 32 A. 215 and Vedapuratti v. Vallabha Valiya Raja 25