JUDGMENT : 1. The facts of this second appeal are as follows: One Kumar Lohar executed a mortgage in favour of Kali Charan in lieu of Rs. 49 in respect of 1 bigha 11 biswas and 16 dhurs of land which he held as a fixed rate tenant. The mortgage was with possession and the term fixed in the deed was 35 years. The plaintiffs-respondents are transferees of the equity of redemption of Kumar Lohar. The defendants-appellants are the heirs of Kali Charan, the mortgagee. The plaintiffs brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Jaunpur on 27th October 1911 for redemption of the property mortgaged by Kumar Lohar on the allegation that the mortgage was made on 15th July 1891 in lieu of Rs. 35. The defendants in their written statement denied the existence of any such mortgage, and stated that a mortgage was made by Kumar Lohar on 29th August 1892 in lieu of Rs. 49, and that it was a usufructuary mortgage for a period of 35 years which period not having expired the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable. The plaintiffs amended their plaint on the information given in the written statement as to the date and the amount of the mortgage. In their amended plaint they stated that the mortgage being for a long term it was invalid, and that they could redeem it in any khali fasil before the expiry of the term. The learned Munsif found that the term of 35 years fixed by the mortgage deed was unconscionable, and he decreed the claim. On appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the decree of the first Court. 2. The defendants who are the heirs of the original mortgagee come up in second appeal to this Court and contend that the mere fact of the length of the term of the mortgage does not render it invalid or enable the mortgagor or his representatives to sue prior to the expiry of the term. It must be noted here that there is no allegation of fraud or over-reaching in the plaint. 3. The only ground on which redemption is sought is that the length of the term of the mortgage by itself shows the bargain to be unconscionable and the contract to be invalid. It must be noted here that there is no allegation of fraud or over-reaching in the plaint. 3. The only ground on which redemption is sought is that the length of the term of the mortgage by itself shows the bargain to be unconscionable and the contract to be invalid. The defendants-appellants, on the other hand, contend that the mere length of the term does not necessarily show that the bargain is invalid or unconscionable, where the right of the mortgagee to foreclose is also postponed for the term of the mortgage. 4. The authority on the point is divided in this Court, In the case of Bhawani v. Sheodihal, [1904] 26 All. 479 : 1 A.L.J. 133 : (1904) A.W.N. 60. it was remarked that where restraint upon redemption extends for a long period, say 30 years or upwards, the contract may, no doubt, be regarded by a Court of equity as unconscionable and oppressive. On the basis of this case the learned vakil for the plaintiffs-respondents contends that his clients have a right to obtain redemption before the expiry of the term of 35 years as the said term is obviously unconscionable. On the other hand the learned vakil for the appellants relies on a later case, namely that of Ram Prasad v. Jagrup , [1912] 15 I.C. 880 : 10 A.L.J. 157, where the covenant in a mortgage deed fixing 58 years for the mortgagor to redeem the mortgaged property was considered not to be hard and unconscionable in the absence of fraud or duress. The case of Ram baran Singh v. Ramker Singh, [1911] 10 I.C. 243, which went up in Letters Patent Appeal No. 73 of 1911, has also, been relied on by the appellants in support of this contention. As the later cases of this Court are in favour of the appellants I must allow their contention. The result ts that allow this appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs in all Courts.