JUDGMENT 1. There are no grounds for interfering in second appeal with the findings of fact of the lower appellate Court. The only point for consideration is as to the admissibility of the oral arrangement providing for repayment of the mortgage debt from the usufruct of the land. The contention, that this amounted to a lease, is clearly untenable, nor did it constitute a usufructuary mortgage, but only a means of discharging the debt by putting the simple mortgagee in possession of the property: see Ram Baksh v. Durjan [1887] 9 All. 392 and Kamala Sahi v. Nundan Mian [1911] 11 C.L.J. 39. As such even an oral agreement may be proved. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.