JUDGMENT

P.C. Banerji, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage alleged to have been made some time between 1833 and 1839 by Albela and Lachhman in favour of Ganga Ram and Ram Dayal. It is stated that the property which is the subject matter of the suit was the subject of a mortgage, that the amount of the mortgage was Rs. 561-4 and that the mortgage was redeemable upon payment of the mortgage money in the month of Jeth of any year. The plaintiff is the purchaser of the equity of redemption from the successors-in-title of the original alleged mortgagors. The principal defendants, who are the representatives of the mortgagee?, deny the fact of the mortgage and deny that the claim is within limitation. Undoubtedly it is for the plaintiff who comes into Court for possession of property by redemption of mortgage to prove two things, first, that a mortgage answering substantially to the description of the mortgage alleged in the plaint was created, and, secondly, that the mortgage was a subsisting mortgage when the suit was brought, i.e., that the plaintiff's claim was not time barred. The fact of the mortgage as alleged by the plaintiff has been found by the Court below, and there is ample evidence on the record to show that a mortgage of the property now in suit was made by the two alleged mortgagors in favour of Ganga Ram and Ram Dayal for a sum of Rs. 561 4 0. In the Khatauni which is to be found in the settlement record of 1833 and which is referred to by the Court below as the Khatauni of 1339, there is a specification of this particular mortgage. It is. stated to be a mortgage made by Albela and Lachhman in favour of Ganga Ram and Ram Dayal. The property is mentioned, the amount of the mortgage is mentioned, and it is further mentioned that the mortgage is redeemable upon payment of the mortgage money in the month of Jeth of any year. A Settlement took place in 1863, and in that Settlement a wazib-ul-arz was prepared in which all mortgages in the village were specified. At the heading of the list of these mortgages it is stated in the wajib-ul-arz that these mortgages could be redeemed upon payment of the principal amount in the month of Jeth of any year. Among these mortgages is the mortgage now in question. The property mortgaged is specified. The Dames of the mortgagors and the mortgagees are also mentioned and the amount of the mortgage is mentioned also. This wajib-ul-arz was signed by Ganga Ram and by the successors-in-title of Ram Dayal, so that the entries in the Khatauni to be found in the Settlement Record of 1833 and in the wajib-ul-arz of 1863 clearly prove the existence of a mortgage of the disputed property with all the details alleged by the plaintiff in this case. The only thing that is wanting in both these documents is the initial date of the mortgage. In my opinion the fact of the plaintiff having been unable to prove the date of the mortgage is not sufficient to justify our holding that the mortgage has not been proved. The date of the mortgage was not material, except for the purpose of the question of limitation to which I shall have to refer later. In the Full Bench case of Parmanand Misir v. Sahib Ali 11 A. 438 : (1889) A.W.N. 155 : 6 Ind. Dec. 708 the learned Chief Justice at the conclusion of his judgment stated that what was necessary to be shown was "a definable or distinguishable mortgage," In the present case a definable or distinguishable mortgage has been fully proved and the mere inability of the plaintiff to prove the exact date of the mortgage is not a valid reason for holding that the fact of the mortgage sought to be redeemed has not been established. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that a mortgage of the property in dispute was made by the alleged mortgagors in favour of the alleged mortgagees for a sum of Rs. 561 4 0, and this finding, which is justified by the evidence to which I have referred, is binding on us in this appeal.

2. The next question is: "H