Judgment 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of affirmance passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Gopalganj, in Title Appeal No. 56/80/2/95. 2. The plaintiffs are the appellants. 3. in short, the case of the plaintiffs is that Gharbharan Tiwary had three sons, namely, Bigu, Bikrama and Mahendra. Bigu had no issue and his wife Phulmani Kunwar died long ago. Mahendra died unmarried. Bikrama died leaving behind his wife Lali Kunwar and two daughters Mukhna and Turna, who inherited the property of Gharbharan on the basis of deed of gift dated 18.5.1948 executed by Lali and they also got possession over the suit property and Mukhna and Turna sold the suit property along with other lands to the plaintiffs on 19.5.1948, 10.4.1962 and 14.5.1962. 4. Further case of the plaintiffs is that Gharbharan Tiwary executed a zerpeshgi for Rs. 217.50 paise with respect to R.S. Plots no. 556 and 558 and for Rs. 99/15/- with respect to each plots bearing no. 754 and 297 long back in the year 1925, 1916 and 1918 respectively. According to them, defendant no. 1 Ram Bilas Tiwary took assignment of all the three mortgages of Tilakdhari Tiwary, Alu Jolha and Gharbharan Chaubey prior to the year 1948. Considering the above facts, a decree for redemption has been sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit after making payment to the defendants. 5. It appears that out of the defendants, only Ram Bilas Tiwary (defendant no. 1) and Raghunath Tiwary (defendant no. 2) appeared, filed their joint written statements and contested the suit. The defendants, besides assailing the validity of the suit on technical grounds, inter alia, alleged that the plaintiffs are the impostors and they have no right to redeem. The defendants claimed that they are not the mortgagees of the suit land rather they are permanent title holders and that there is no relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee between the parties. Further case of the defendants is that Gharbharan Tiwary had never executed any zerpeshgi in favour of Tilakdhari Tiwary for a consideration of Rs. 100/- or for any other amount. The so-called zerpeshgi as alleged in paragraph 5 of the plaint is purely an imaginary transaction set up by the plaintiffs. Further case of the defendants is that Gharbharan Tiwary had never executed any zerpeshgi in favour of Tilakdhari Tiwary for a consideration of Rs. 100/- or for any other amount. The so-called zerpeshgi as alleged in paragraph 5 of the plaint is purely an imaginary transaction set up by the plaintiffs. According to them, the plaintiffs filed the suit suppressing the real fact that Gharbharan Tiwary had executed three zerpeshgi deeds; one in the joint names of Gharbharan Chaubey and Suruj Bali Chaubey, second in the joint names of Alu Jolha and Akalu Jolha and the third in the name of Satyanarain Tiwary. On 30th Baishakh 1337 Fasii, Gharbharan Tiwary sold his equity of redemption to Ram Nagina Tiwary (father of defendant no. 1) and Ramakant Tiwary (father of defendant no. 2) for a consideration of Rs. 99/-. After having received the consideration, Gharbharan Tiwary along with his aforesaid vendees went to the mortgagees and got their mortgages redeemed by his vendees Ram Nagina Tiwary and Ramakant Tiwary.The mortgagees handed over their respective original mortgage deeds to the vendees aforesaid and also vacated possession in their favour and since then Ram Nagina Tiwary and Ramakant Tiwary came in and after their death defendants no. 1 and 2 are in possession of the suit land as vendees and not as mortgagees. Defendants no. 1 and 2 also claimed to have perfected their title by adverse possession in the suit land. With respect to other defendants, they pleaded that they are in collusion with the plaintiffs and the defendants are not in any way bound by their statements. The plaintiffs have filed the suit being actuated by malice and grudge with a view to harass the defendants. 6. The trial court considering the evidence led by the parties dismissed the suit on contest with cost and the lower appellate court though did not accept the story of sale as set up by the defendants but, on detailed discussion, dismissed the appeal on contest with cost and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The lower appellate court has formulated five points for consideration, out of which fourth point relating to story of sale as set up by the defendants has not been found to be correct, but rest all the points have been decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. 7. The lower appellate court has formulated five points for consideration, out of which fourth point relating to story of sale as set up by the defendants has not been found to be correct, but rest all the points have been decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. 7. It is submitted that the lower appellate court has erred in law in deciding the remaining four points. According to the learned counsel, in the first point the lower appellate court has found that in the absence of registration or mortgage deed, they were not to be considered and accepted as legally valid transaction in view of the provision of section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act as all the consideration of the mortgages were of Rs. 100/- or more and has thereby erred in holding that there was no relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee between the parties and the suit for redemption brought by the plaintiffs is not entertainable and maintainable. He submitted that only one mortgage was for above Rs. 100/- and rest of the two mortgages were of Rs. 99/15/- i.e. less than Rs. 100/- and as such section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application at all with respect to the remaining two mortgages. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, even if the mortgage of 1925 was not a valid transaction for non-compliance of section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, still the defendants acquired the character of mortgagees of the disputed land because of prescription and, therefore, the plaintiffs had right to get a decree for redemption. In support of this, he relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukra Oraon. V/s. Jagat Mohan, reported in AIR 1957 Patna 245 (Paragraph 2). He also submitted that where a person enters possession of immovable property not on the assertion of any absolute title but on the basis of an unregistered Rehan bond in his favour and remains in possession for more than 12 years, he acquires status of a mortgagee by the doctrine of prescription and so even though the Rehan bond is not a valid transaction for want of registration, the mortgagor is entitled to redeem the property. In support of this, the learned counsel has placed reliance on another Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rupa Nonia V/s. Ram Brich, reported in AIR 1959 Patna 164. 8. There may be some substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants with respect to maintainability of the suit relating to two mortgages which were of less than Rs. 100/-. But on the question of assignment, I find that the lower appellate court on detailed discussion of the evidence in paragraphs 18 to 28 has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to establish their case of alleged assignment of the mortgages concerned. He has also discussed the case of the defendants that there is no relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee between the parties and the defendants are not the mortgagees of the suit land and relying upon the unregistered mortgage deeds (Exts. D to D/2), the genuineness of which has not been disputed by the plaintiffs, has found that the first mortgage was not only in favour of Gharbharan Chaubey but also in favour of Surujbali Chaubey. Likewise, the second mortgage was also in favour of Akalu Jolha besides Alu Jolha and the third mortgage was not at all in favour of Tilakdhari Tiwary, rather it was in favour of Satyanarain Tiwary. The lower appellate court has also taken notice of the fact that on the face of the said documentary evidence, the plaintiffs did not amend their plaint and on further consideration that on the face of the mortgage deeds (Exts. D to D/2) filed on behalf of the defendants exclude the oral evidence of the plaintiffs in respect of them found that the case of the plaintiffs on assignment has collapsed like a wall of sands and house of cards. 9. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the lower appellate court has erred in holding that the plaintiffs do not have any cause of action as they never tendered mortgage consideration to Ram Bilas Tiwary. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, tender of mortgage money is not a condition precedent to the filing of the suit for redemption. 10. I fail to appreciate the said submission. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, tender of mortgage money is not a condition precedent to the filing of the suit for redemption. 10. I fail to appreciate the said submission. It is true that the lower appellate court, on detailed consideration of evidence on the question whether the story of tender as set up by the plaintiffs is correct, has come to the conclusion that in view of the evidence, it could not be accepted even for a moment that the plaintiffs ever tendered mortgage consideration to Rambilas Tiwary (defendant no. 1) and on the face of the evidence of P.W. 13, who has not supported at all the plaintiffs case on tender, held that the plaintiffs do not have any cause of action for the suit either. But the said question will be relevant only if the plaintiffs would have succeeded in establishing their case regarding mortgage. Moreover, the lower appellate court has also taken note of the fact that according to the evidence-in-chief of P.W. 13 the mortgages were oral and he was already paid zerpeshgi money to defendant no. 1 Rambilash Tiwary and came in possession of the suit land. So it has rightly been found by the lower appellate court that what was the need for the plaintiffs to file the suit for redemption. 11. On the question whether the plaintiffs has equity of redemption with respect to the suit land, the lower appellate court in paragraph 52 has found that in view of the decision regarding points no. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, the said question has to be decided and determined in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. 12. In view of the said concurrent findings on the above question, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment much less when no substantial question of law is involved for interference in second appeal. This appeal is, thus, dismissed in limine.