JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage made on the 12th of November 1880, by three persons, namely, Mulch Ram Singh, Kanbai Singh and Durjan Singh, in favour of Ram Dayal, Behari Lal and Kishori Lal, the predecessor-in-title of the defendants-appellants. The property comprised in the mortgage was a 10-bisw-is, 13 1/4--biswansis, share in the village of Mukimpur. In this property the share of Mukh Ram was 8 biswas and the remainder belonged to the other two mortgagors. The amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 8,500 and the term of the mortgage was ten years. The plaintiffs are the assignees of the interests of same of the mortgagors. It is common ground that in execution of a decree obtained upon a prior mortgage of 1874 the shares of Kanhai Singh and Durjan Singh, namely, 2 biswas 13 1/4 biswansis was sold by auction and passed out of the possession of the mortgagees in 1686. The mortgage-deed in suit provides that the rate of interest was 12 annas per cent, per mensem, i.e., Rs. 9 per cent, per annum, that the usufruct was to be taken in lieu of interest, and that the mortgagees were not to claim interest on the mortgage-money, nor were the mortgagors to claim profits of the mortgaged property so long as the mortgage subsisted. A partition took place about the year 1890 and under that partition the properly remaining in the possession of the mortgagees was formed into an eight-biswa mahal. The plaintiffs claimed possession of the whole of the mortgaged property and made parties to the suit the persons who had purchased the 2 biswas 13 1/4 biswansis share mentioned above in execution of the decree passed on the earlier mortgage of 1874. They offered to pay to the defendants Rs. 8,500 the principal amount, of the mortgage. The defendants contended that in addition to that amount they were entitled to be recouped the loss of interest sustained by them by reason of the 2 biswas, 13 1/4 biswansis share having passed out of their possession. They further contended that as the revenue of the mortgaged property had been enhanced after the mortgage they were entitled under the terms of the mortgage to the difference between the revenue which existed on the date of the mortgage and the enhanced revenue which they subsequently had to pay. They also claimed the costs of the construction of certain indigo vats and the costs of partition proceedings. The fourth item which they claimed was arrears of rent due by tenants up to time when the plaintiffs sought to redeem the mortgage and this item they said they were entitled to, under the terms of the mortgage-deed. The Court below has made a decree in the plaintiff's favour for possession of the 8 biswas share which remained with the mortgagees after the sale of the remainder of the mortgaged property. It has awarded to the defendants the costs of building two vats and arrears of rent for one year only and it has disallowed the other items claimed by the mortgagees-defendants. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants mortgagees, and the plaintiffs have put forward objections under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We will deal, first of all, with the appeal of the defendants. The first item which they claim in the appeal is the item of loss of interest to which we have referred above. As to this, the contention on their behalf is that the amount of the usufruct of the whole of the mortgaged property was equivalent to interest at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum as mentioned in the mortgage-deed; that they have not received and enjoyed the usufruct of the whole of the mortgaged property by reason of a part of it having passed out of their possession in satisfaction of the earlier mortgage of 1874, that they have thus received a smaller amount of usufruct than that which they would have obtained had they been in possession of the whole of the mortgaged property, and that the difference should be made good to them by