JUDGMENT : 1. Several points are raised in this appeal. But the plea particularly pressed before me is that under the circumstances of this case there can be no question of specific mortgage, and that on the facts found and proved, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for redemption. The case is one in which the plaintiff, who is appellant before me, came into Court setting out in his plaint that the mortgage which he sought to redeem was a mortgage of 27th July 1858, in which one Inchha was mortgagor and Brijlal mortgagee. He entered into further details connected with the mortgage. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the specific mortgage set up in his plaint and in consequence have dismissed the suit. The defendants admitted that a mortgage had been made by Inchha in favour of Brijlal and they went on to say that no mortgage alleged by the plaintiff subsisted. The time of mortgage and the amount of mortgage money as alleged by the plaintiff ware also denied. The contention raised in the third plea of this appeal was put forward as being a contention sanctioned by the case Bala v. Shiva, [1903] 27 Bom. 271 : 5 Bom. L.R. 85. 2. In that case however there is this difference, and it is an important difference. The plaintiff before the Bombay Court did not tie himself down to any specific mortgage made in a particular year. The defendants who were in possession denied the mortgage, and it was held that the real question was whether the defendants were mortgagees of the property in question. Further, that under such circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to succeed if he proved that the land was held by the defendants as mortgagees. My attention was also drawn to Ganeshi Lal v. Basanti Lal, [1913] 20 I.C. 29. But on looking into the judgment, I find that in this case also the plaintiff did not tie himself down to any specific mortgage. All that he stated was that there was a mortgage made some time about 1853. 3. The defendants admitted that they were mortgagees of the property, and went on to qualify this admission by adding, that the existence of any mortgage alleged by the plaintiff was not admitted. All that he stated was that there was a mortgage made some time about 1853. 3. The defendants admitted that they were mortgagees of the property, and went on to qualify this admission by adding, that the existence of any mortgage alleged by the plaintiff was not admitted. The case, with which I have to deal with, is one which is clearly covered by Zingari Singh v. Bhagwan Singh, [1889] A.W.N. 187. I find myself in accord with the learned Judge who decided that case, and hold that where the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to possession by reason of the determination of a mortgage, it is for him to prove that he had at the commencement of the suit a subsisting title to the possession of the property and that he must mention in his plaint facts to show that such title exists. He is not entitled to succeed merely because the defendant fails to prove the case he sets up. I therefore dismiss this appeal with costs which will in this Court include fees on the higher scale.