JUDGMENT : Aikman, J. The appeal arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage for Rs. 2,300, which was executed on the 21st January, 1869, by Chunni, Hannu Ram and Narpat in favour of Kanji Mal and Dal Chand. The plaintiffs have purchased this bond and bring a suit against the transferees of the property to recover a sum of Rs. 5,500, on account of the principal and interest. The bond, when put in by the plaintiffs, was found to bear the following endorsement: “Received Rs. 1,870 from Mohar Singh, son of Kishan, caste Jat, resident of Kota Harnathpur, in lieu of 1 biswa, 4 biswansis. The remaining amount is due by other vendees. There is no longer any claim against Mohar Singh, aforesaid.” With reference to this endorsement the plaintiffs say in their plaint that the sum of Rs. 1,870 was received on the 27th September, 1878, but that it “appears” that the endorsement had been made contrary to the intention of the creditors in collusion with the Patwari. It has to be remembered that the plaintiffs had no interest in the bond at the time the endorsement was made. The bond bore the endorsement when the plaintiffs purchased it. It does not appear what ground the plaintiffs had for saying that the endorsement was not a genuine endorsement Any how no evidence was called by the plaintiffs to prove the collusion alleged in the plaint. 2. On the strength of this endorsement the representatives of Mohar Singh, the purchaser of a portion of the mortgaged property, ask to be exempted from the plaintiff's claim. In regard to this the learned Subordinate Judge says, “The endorsement on the reverse of the bond, the correctness of which is admitted by the plaintiffs most distinctly, shows that Mohar Singh's share was exempted, But according to law such an endorsement cannot have any effect as regards immoveables unless it is registered. I therefore hold that Mohar Singh's share must also be held liable for the balance of the debt.” In appeal here it is urged that the decision of the Subordinate Judge on this question is erroneous and reference is made to a decision of this Court, vis., Gurdial v. Jauhri Mal, [1885] I.L.R., 7 All, 820. That decision, which we are bound to follow, was in a case similar to the present, and entirely supports the appellants' contention. That decision, which we are bound to follow, was in a case similar to the present, and entirely supports the appellants' contention. According to that Case the endorsement did not require registration. We sustain the appellant's plea and hold that the suit as against the representatives of Mohar Singh must fail and as against them we dismiss it with costs here and in the Court below