JUDGMENT : Rafiq, J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of Rs. 440 principal and interest on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated the 17th June, 1894, alleged to have been executed in his favour by Badan Singh, the father of the defendant-appellant No. 1 and the grandfather of the other defendants-appellants. The claim was resisted on the ground, among others, that the mortgage-deed sought to be enforced was defective for want of registration and could not, therefore, be enforced. It was urged that the mortgage-deed was for Rs. 180 and that under section 59 of Act II of 1882, it should have been registered. The plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, said that the principal money secured was Rs. 91, and therefore, it did not require any registration. The court of first instance yielded to the plea in defence and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Agra disagreed with the first court and reversed its decree. The defendants have come up in second appeal to this Court. The only point raised in this appeal is that the mortgage-deed in suit cannot be enforced for want of registration. It appears from the terms of the deed that Rs. 91 were due to the plaintiff-respondent from Badan Singh, on the 17th of June, 1894, on bahi khata account. Badan Singh agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 91 by instalments in eighteen years. Badan Singh was to pay Rs. 5 every six months. The instalments fixed by the deed obviously included a lump sum of Rs. 89 for interest on the principal debt of Rs. 91 though the deed does not expressly say so. Badan Singh further agreed that in case of default he would be liable for the payment of the whole sum of Rs. 180 plus interest, at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem from the date of default. Again it should be observed that the deed does not say expressly that in case of default the sum of Rs. 180 was recoverable. The words used are:— Aur chuke ek muthi rupaya biaju adate rupaya do ke hisab sudi (and in case of default I would pay the principal and interest in one lump sum, carrying interest at two per cent, per mensem). 180 was recoverable. The words used are:— Aur chuke ek muthi rupaya biaju adate rupaya do ke hisab sudi (and in case of default I would pay the principal and interest in one lump sum, carrying interest at two per cent, per mensem). Now it is said for the appellants that the money secured by the mortgage was the sum of Rs. 180, because under the terms of the deed in case of default the whole sum of Rs. 180 became payable. On the other hand, the argument for the plaintiff-respondent is that the principal money in lieu of which the mortgage was given, is Rs. 91. After carefully considering the terms of the deed, I am of opinion that the contention of the plaintiff-respondent is correct. It is distinctly stated in the deed that the debt due from Badan Singh, was Rs. 91, which was to be paid in 18 years by six-monthly instalments of Rs. 5 each. It is true that the deed gives a right to the mortgagee in case of default in the payment of a single instalment to recover the whole sum that would be payable in 10 years, that is Rs. 180, together with future interest at 2 per cent, per mensem. But the language of the deed shows that the amount for which the security was given was the amount of the principal debt, namely, Rs. 91. I agree with the lower appellate court that the mortgage in suit being for Rs. 91 only, did not require registration. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.