This is an application for revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam Districts, Tezpur, affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff. Tezpur. (2) The facts of the case which are amusing centre round an unholy controversy over a small loan of Rs. 500 advanced by the plaintiff to no one else than his wife's younger sister's husband, the defendant. The plaintiffs case is that some­time on 28th Asarh, 1387 B.S., corresponding to 28-7-1960, he lent Rs. 500 to the defendant, who executed a mortgage bond securing the loan. The bond which was impounded in the suit was an unregistered document. It is said, the plaintiff was given possession of the land to enjoy the usufruct in lieu of interest until re­payment of the principal. On the plaintiffs demanding back the money, the defendant in­vited him to his residence for repayment and the plaintiff went there with the document. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant tore die bond into three pieces without making any payment. The defendant asserts that after re­ceipt of the dues it was the plaintiff who tore the document and while the torn pieces were fulfill on the table, the defendant had gone inside for something and he, on return from inside, neither found the plaintiff nor the torn pieces of the document on the table. The plaintiff, however, states that he made hue and cry about it and drew the attention of the neighbors and went to a teacher nearby to report about the episode. The teacher could not unite this sordid schism between the parties. The plaintiff then approached the Anchalik Pancnayat without avail and hence his suit for recovery of the said loan with interest. (3) The defendant admitted the loan but pleaded repayment of the same at his house in file circumstances stated above. The crux of the defence being one of repayment, both the Courts below rejected the defence story. (4) This being the position, there is not much force in a petition under Section 115 of die Code of Civil Procedure against the judg­ment and decree based on such a finding of fact. Even so, Mr. The crux of the defence being one of repayment, both the Courts below rejected the defence story. (4) This being the position, there is not much force in a petition under Section 115 of die Code of Civil Procedure against the judg­ment and decree based on such a finding of fact. Even so, Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the decree is without jurisdiction on the ground that no suit for money would lie on the admitted position of the parties that there was a usufruc­tuary mortgage deed evidencing the transaction. He further submits that this deed, although un­registered, can be looked into for collateral pur­pose under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act and that according to him, will reveal a usu­fructuary mortgage. (5) The above submissions, however, fail to take note of the pleadings of the parties that money had been lent by the plaintiff to the de­fendant under an unregistered bond and that the defendant-petitioner stated he had repaid the tame. The plaintiff-opposite party, even if he wishes, cannot rely on an unregistered mortgage bond to enforce the right of a usufructuary mortgagee. This mortgage deed, as such, is in­admissible in law to prove the mortgage and can confer no rights oil the plaintiff as a usu­fructuary mortgagee. In a usufructuary mort­gage, the mortgagee normally retains possession of the property and looks to the rents and pro­fits thereof the repayment of the interest or even of the loan in certain cases. It is only the mort­gagor who would be in a position to redeem the property and in a certain situation it is con­ceivable that the mortgage automatically gets re­deemed by appropriation of the rents and profits towards payment of the interest as well as the principal amount. Under a usufructuary mort­gage, in absence on a personal covenant to repay the loan, a suit instituted for recovery of the loan is not maintainable. This, however, is not the case here. In the instant case, there is no legally valid usufructuary mortgage. In vie\\ of the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, the instrument in this case fan riot create a usufructuary mortgage. Being faced with this position, Mr. This, however, is not the case here. In the instant case, there is no legally valid usufructuary mortgage. In vie\\ of the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, the instrument in this case fan riot create a usufructuary mortgage. Being faced with this position, Mr. Bhatta­charjee strenuously contends that in view of the admitted position of the parties that there was in fact a usufructuary mortgage and that the plaintiff had been put in possession of the land, the suit for recovery of money is not legally maintainable and hence the decree is without jurisdiction. Assuming that the factual position is, as claimed by the petitioners Counsel, that does not affect the legal position that the suit is not and cannot be instituted on the basis of the instrument as a usufructuary mortgage deed. Shorn of all verbiage, the pleadings of the parties lead to one conclusion that there was a loan which the defendant admitted and which, ac­cording to him, was discharged by repayment. Both the Courts below having rejected mat plea, a decree as given is irresistible. There can be no valid objection to the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff can always claim for recovery of the loan when the document is unregistered or otherwise inoperative. (6) This takes me to the next argument of the petitioner regarding Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Section 49 reads as follows: " No document required by Sec. 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any tran­saction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act. 1877, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence. 1877, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence. of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument." It is difficult to appreciate how Section 49 assists the petitioner even if this document can be looked into for a collateral purpose under S. 49. Such a purpose cannot take the place of a domi­nant purpose of spelling out a usufructuary mortgage in an unregistered bond (Ext. 1) pro­duced in this suit It may however, be relied on for the purpose of proving the personal covenant to repay the loan, when this is sever-able from the other parts of the document. This submission comes to the aid of the plaintiff rather than to that of the petitioner. (7) There is thus no substance in this peti­tion and it cannot be said that the Courts below had no jurisdiction to pass the decree in a suit of this nature. The petition is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs Petition dismissed.