JUDGMENT Jenkins, C.J. - This is a reference under sec. 98 of the present Code of Civil Procedure. It provides, amongst other things, that " where a Bench hearing the appeal is composed of two Judges belonging to a Court consisting of more than two Judges and the Judges composing the Bench differ in opinion on a point of law they may state the point of law upon which they differ and the appeal shall then be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority (if any) of the Judges who have heard the appeal, including those who first heard it." The appeal in this suit was heard by Coxe and Harinath Boy, JJ., and the points of law on which they differed in opinion were formulated by them as follows :-In the circumstances of this case is a suit for redemption barred by sec. 47 of the Code? I agree with Mr. Justice Boy that this suit for redemption is not barred. And I so fully agree with the reasons that he has given that it would serve no useful purpose to endeavour to put them into different language. The only point to which I would take exception is that the question is erroneous in so far as it refers to sec. 47. The reference should have been to sec. 244, as this suit commenced in 1908 before the present Code came into operation. Having answered that question in the negative we are then asked whether this suit can be regarded as a suit for redemption of the mortgage. I am unable to regard it as anything else; and here again I must express my complete acceptance of the arguments advanced by Mr. Justice Roy. 2. The result then is that the matters on which the learned Judges were at variance should be decided in accordance with the opinion of Mr. Justice Boy. Unfortunately the learned Judges from whose difference of opinions this matter has come before us have left it in doubt as to what course should be taken in the event which has now happened, that is to say, in the event of our agreeing with Mr. Justice Boy. Justice Boy. Unfortunately the learned Judges from whose difference of opinions this matter has come before us have left it in doubt as to what course should be taken in the event which has now happened, that is to say, in the event of our agreeing with Mr. Justice Boy. The only thing that can be done is that the case must be sent back to the Bench taking the group of this case. N.R. Chatterjea, J. 3. I agree. 4. The appeals came on for final hearing before their Lordships the Chief Justice and N.R. Chatterjea, J., on the 1st of June 1915, who at the time were the Judges presiding over the group to which these appeals belonged. Their Lordships disposed of the appeals by the following judgment: 5. This litigation which has been pending since the 21st January 1909 came before a Bench of two Judges by way of appeal who differed on a point of law; and it accordingly came before Mr. Justice N.B. Chatterjea and myself under sec. 98 of the Code. We expressed our opinion on the point of law referred to. And being the Bench now taking the group the case has come before us for final disposal. 6. We have experienced some difficulty in determining how to dispose of the case as unfortunately the two learned Judges did not make alternative decrees, as would be the convenient procedure where powers under sec. 98 are brought into operation. But the parties before us have taken up a very sensible attitude and enabled us to arrive at what is an approximation at any rate, to a just result. With the approval of the parties the decree that we now pass will be in these terms-the Plaintiff and the mortgagees waiving all accounts as between themselves and the Plaintiff consenting to accept Defendant No. 7 as his tenant on the terms of the dar-ijara for a term of years which will expire in September 1922 at a rent of Rs. 1,424-8-0 (Rupees one thousand four hundred and twenty-four and annas eight only) a year subject to any further reduction in case anything in excess of Es. 1,424-8-0 (Rupees one thousand four hundred and twenty-four and annas eight only) a year subject to any further reduction in case anything in excess of Es. 195-8-0 has to be properly paid to the representatives of the original mortgagor; and Defendant No. 7 undertaking to pay to the mortgagees all arrears of rent up to the kist which fell due in Chaitra last and undertaking to pay all future rent to the Plaintiff beginning with the kist which will fall due in Assar next it is decreed that the property be forthwith redeemed. All attachments, if any, will be released. Each party will bear its own costs throughout.