JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. The property was mortgaged in the year 1880. The property was in a sense redeemed in the year 1898 by the defendants of the first party. In truth and in fact the redemption took place in this way, that the manager of the plaintiffs's family entered into an agreement with the defendants of the first party that the latter should redeem two mortgages and that the defendants were to become the proprietors of all the property redeemed except a 4-pies share which was to be made over unencumbered to the plaintiffs' father, who represented the plaintiffs' family. This document was not registered and accordingly it could not be used to show that the equity of redemption had rested in the answering defendants. 2. It was proved in the Court below, apparently without any objection on legal grounds, that as a matter of fact the agreement, though unregistered, had been acted upon. The 4-pies share had been recovered in a suit brought by the plaintiffs' father in 1902 and partition proceedings had subsequently taken place on the basis that the answering defendants were the actual proprietors, and not merely mortgagees of the share of which they were in possession under these circumstances we think that the Court below was justified in dismissing the suit; we think that the principle upon which the case of Mahomed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganguli, A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 27 : 42 I.A. 1 (P.C.). was decided, may be applied to this case. We dismiss the appeal with costs.