Shiva Kirti Singh, J.—At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were recorded in the Order dated 27th May, 1988:

(i) Whether the mortgaged deed in question is an anomalous mortgage or a deed of mortgage by conditional sale.

(ii) Whether the suit is barred under Section 12 of the Money Lenders Act.

(iii) Whether the Order, Exh. C will operate as res judicata.

2. By Order passed on 9th September, 2003 the learned Single Judge found difficulty in deciding the appeal and desired that the matter be heard by a Division Bench, particularly to answer Question No.2. Under the Orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice the matter has been listed for hearing by a Division Bench.

3. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff-Respondent against Judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barh whereby appeal of the Defendant (Respondent) herein was allowed and after reversing the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Barh the suit for redemption of mortgaged property described in schedule to the plaint and for recovery of its possession was dismissed.

4 The Appellate Court held that the mortgage in question