FACTS :- One B mortgaged his property to N. The mortgage contained the following clause :- "Agar mabain miyad das sal main fariq doyam kothi mazkur ko bai karunga to us halat men miyad mundarja bala fiskh ho jawegi, magar sharat yeh hai ki jis asli qimat par kothi mazkur bai hogi uski itla tehriri miyadi do hafta fariq awwal ko kar di jawegi. Agar fariq awwal kothi mazkur kharid karna chahega to us qimat par jis par dusra shakhs asal kharidar hoga awwal badast Fariq awwal kothi mazkur farokht ki jawegi, basurat inkar tehriri ya jawab na dena ta miyad fariq doyam digar shakhs ke hath farokht kar sakega aur jo mutalba us waqt ham fariq No. 1 ka wajib-ul-talab hoga woh kul wasul karkar kothi mazkur khali kar di jawegi." B then desiring to sell the property to A sent notice to N who expressed their intention to purchase the property at fair market price, alleging the price in the notice as fictitious. Property was then sold to A who sued for redemption. The Trial Court holding that the sale price was fictitious refused to allow redemption and this decision was upheld in the appellate Court. A appeals to the Privy Council from that decision. Viscount Haldane:- Their Lordships feel themselves in a position to dispose of this appeal at once. They take the view that on the true construction of Clause 7 of the mortgage-deed, the appellant is out of Court if it be once shown that the real purchase price on the sale by him was different from the nominal amount of Rs. 80,000, and as to this there were concurrent findings in the Courts below that it was so. In their Lordships' opinion the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly. Appeal dismissed.