JUDGMENT : Burkitt, J.:— On the 8th of September, 1896, Fateh Husain, the zamindar of the village, gave a usufructuary mortgage of 15 bighas odd of his sir land to one Shadi Ram. The consideration for the mortgage was Rs. 300. Subsequently the mortgagee, Shadi Ram, jointly with Piare Lal and Bansidhar, obtained from Fateh Husain a hypothecation bond of the whole of his interest in the village the consideration again being Rs. 300. These mortgagees sued on their mortgage of 1897. They got a decree for sale upon it, and they purchased Fateh Husain's zamindari interest in the village on the 21st of January, 1901. 2. On the 14th of May, 1901, Fateh Husain, the ex-zamindar, who had now become an ex-proprietary tenant of his sir, gave a usufructuary mortgage of that sir land to the plaintiffs, Sunehra Singh and others. The plaintiffs under the provisions of section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, deposited in Court the sum of Rs. 300 as being the amount clue on the mortgage of 8th of September, 1896. They deposited it to credit of the mortgagee, Shadi Ram, with the intimation that the money was paid in for the purpose of redeeming the mortgage, of the 8th September, 1896. They give full details of the property mortgaged under it and say that Fateh Husain has now given them a mortgage of that land and left with them Rs. 300 wherewith to redeem Shadi Ram's mortgage. Notice having been sent to Shadi Ram, the money so paid in was withdrawn by him without any objection. It must therefore be taken that the act of withdrawing the money without objection amounted to an acknowledgment that the person to whose credit the money was deposited held an actually existing mortgage over the property mentioned, and that that mortgage was capable of being redeemed. 3. When therefore the money was so accepted, the person who took it must be understood to have admitted the right of the depositor to redeem it. This position he, however, declines to accept. He has taken the money; he keeps it, but will not surrender the land to redeem while the money was deposited. 3. When therefore the money was so accepted, the person who took it must be understood to have admitted the right of the depositor to redeem it. This position he, however, declines to accept. He has taken the money; he keeps it, but will not surrender the land to redeem while the money was deposited. Now it possibly may be questioned whether the mortgage ‘executed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants is a mortgage which was in the power of Fateh Husain to execute on the 14th of May, 1901, after he had become an ex-proprietary tenant. That question, however, I regard as immaterial. Shadi Ram and the other respondents by accepting the money paid in under section 83 must be considered, as I have stated above, to have acknowledged that they held a mortgage which the person depositing the money had a right to redeem. I cannot in equity allow them to retain the money, and at the same time to say that the person who executed the mortgage of the 14th of May, 1901, had no power to execute the document which authorised the plaintiffs to pay in the money. Defendants desire both to keep the money and to keep the land. This I cannot in equity allow. I allow this appeal with costs.’ I set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore with costs the decree of the Court of first instance.