JUDGMENT

1. Dr. Agarwala has argued this case very ably on behalf of the plaintiffs. We think, however, the appeal fails.

2. The suit was a suit for redemption brought by two plaintiffs for the recovery of possession of certain lands which had been mortgaged under two mortgage-deeds by their predecessor-in-title. One of these mortgages was dated June 1863 and the other was dated July 1865, Both documents are described as deeds of mortgage by conditional sale. Both deeds are on the record and it is to be observed at once that under the provisions of these deeds the mortgagee was not entitled to possession. It was stipulated in both the deeds that the mortgagor would pay off the mortgage debts in the month of Baisakh 1275, corresponding to 1868, and it was agreed that, in default of payment of the debts just mentioned, the mortgagee was to be entitled to take foreclosure proceedings and to enter into possession as full owner.

3. It is admitted that in the year 1868, proceedings were taken under Regn, 17 of 1806 in order to obtain foreclosure. It has been found by both the Courts below that there were irregularities in the proceedings taken to foreclose and consequently it must now be ac