Deka J - This is a second appeal arising from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordi­nate Judge, L. A D. reversing the decree in the suit passed by the Munsiff of Gauhati in Title c Suits No 9 of 1947. [2] The plaintiff's case is that their predeces­sor, in interest late Birohuram Kalita mortgaged the land in suit by way of usufructuary mortgage to Birdatta Kalita on 11 6-1926 for a sum of Rs. 180 only and as twelve years have elapsed since after the date of the mortgage, the mortgage stood automatically redeemed under the Assam Money-' lenders Act of 1943. The plaintiffs claim the right of redemption with regard to the land mortgaged by Birohu together with compensation valued at Rs. 200. [3] Defendant 1, Birdatta pleaded that there was no subsisting mortgage and that the mortgage debt had been liquidated long before the present suit was brought. His defence was that Biroha and Menoka were two brothers and the loan was obtained by Birohu as the Karta of the joint family. Menoka was entitled to half of the mortgaged land and he sold his portion of the land to the defendant by a registered deed for cash consi­deration and subsequent thereto, Hashiram who was given by his father Birohu one-fourth of his share i.e. one eighth of the mortgaged land by way of gift, sold the same to the defendant 1, by a registered sale deed and Birohu himself relin­quished his interest in the land in favour of the defendant 1, by an endorsement in the mortgage deed itself on 2nd of Magh 1347 B. S. (correspond­ing to 15-1-1941) in lieu of the unpaid portion of the mortgage debt and the mortgage debt was thus completely liquidated by the transfer of the interest of the share-holders in the land to the mortgagee. [4) The learned Munsiff found the transfer in favour of defendant 1 by Menotea and Hasiram to be valid and decreed the suit for redemption with regard to 3/8th share of the mortgaged land with proportionate cost. The plaintiff appealed against this decree to the Subordinate Judge and the defendant 1 also filed cross-objections. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the transfer by Birohu of his subsisting interest in the land by the endorsement dated 2nd Magh 1347 was quite valid an! that id operated to extinguish the mortgage debt completely. The plaintiff appealed against this decree to the Subordinate Judge and the defendant 1 also filed cross-objections. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the transfer by Birohu of his subsisting interest in the land by the endorsement dated 2nd Magh 1347 was quite valid an! that id operated to extinguish the mortgage debt completely. He found that the mortgage debt was satisfied in the year 1941 and the Assam Act IV (4) of 1943-(The Assam Money lenders Act) had no application to the facts and circumstance of the case and accordingly the plaintiffs' suit was directed to be dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against this decree. [5l The only point pressed before us by the learns-d Advocate for the appellants is that the endorsement Ex. C (2) on the back of the mort­gage deed made by Birohu, could not operate as a transfer of the interest of the mortgagor and the right of redemption was not extinguished thereby. Mr Sarma contends that it being a transfer of the interest in land, it ought to have been made by a registered document and in the absence of such a document the endorsement does not operate as a transfer in law. Two points require our consideration in connection with this contention: (1) whether the interest in the lard was valued at more Shan Bs. 100, (a) if it exceeded Rs. 100 whether the unregistered endorsement can be given effect to for the purpose of ascer­taining its terms and whether-it binds the parties, [6] The learned Advocate for the respondent contends that it appears from another endorsement made in the document which is marked Ex. 0 (i) that the mortgage debt was divided between Menoka and Birohu and Birohu agreed to pay interest or hold himself liable only for Bs. 90; this endorsement was made on 25.4 1988. Mr. Sen appearing for the respondent contended on the basis of this endorsement that the unpaid portion of the debt due by Birohu was therefore Bs. 90 and that this transfer of his interest in the land was made for a sum of Bs. 90 alone and as such, no registration was necessary for the trans­fer of Birohu's interest in the land. It is stated in the endorsement Ex. 90 and that this transfer of his interest in the land was made for a sum of Bs. 90 alone and as such, no registration was necessary for the trans­fer of Birohu's interest in the land. It is stated in the endorsement Ex. 0 (2) that the transfer of Birohu's right of possession with respect to the land was on account of the debt covered by the deed, which implied that the consideration for this transfer was the sum due from Biroha under the mortgage. Taking the two endorse­ments together it is reasonable to say that the consideration for the transfer of the interest was for BS. 90 which Birohu was liable to pay to de­fendant l on the basis of the mortgage. [7] Assuming that the value of the possessory interest of Birohu which he transferred was worth more than Us. 100 and the document of transfer therefore required registration, it seems to us that S 53A, T. P. Act would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to rely on this section when he says in his judgment that respondent i being in possession under an unregistered sale deed would also be protected from dispossession by the doctrine of part performance, Section 53A T. P. Act reads : "Where any person contracts to transfer for considera­tion any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reason­able certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the con tract and has done soma act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing so perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that the contract, though re­quired to be registered has not been registered.....the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarre4 from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession....." [8] la the case before us the terms of the transfer can be sufficiently ascertaintd from the endorsement Ex. O (2) with reasonable certainty and the transferee has in part performance of the contract not only continued in possession of the property but has entered into the relation of landlord and tenant with the landlord of Birohu at the instance of Birohu. He has got settlement of the land from the landlord and is paying rent as a tenant at the instance of Birohu in furthe­rance of the contract. The mortgage debt also has been treated as paid. These circumstances are [sufficient to enable defendant l to claim the transfer of the interest of Birohu by the doctrine of part-performance. By virtue of S. 53A, T. P. Act the plaintiffs who are successors-in-interest of Birohu are debarred from enforcing against the transferee any supposed right of redemption of the property. [9] In the result we affirm the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs. [10] Thadani C. J. - I agree. Appeal dismissed.