JUDGMENT : J. C. DOSHI, J. Concurrent findings rendered by the courts below is sought to be assailed in this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the suit of the plaintiff was allowed and preliminary decree passed for redemption of the property mortgaged to the appellant. 2. On 20/02/2001, this Court admitted the captioned appeal by framing following substantial question of law: “Whether right to redeem the mortgaged property in question came to be extinguished immediately on execution of Sale deed dated. 20th May, 1970 (Ex.103)?” 3. The appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff and they are addressed as per their original status before the courts below. 4. In essence the dispute between the parties in regards to the issue that whether a mortgage by the conditional sale (Exh.45) has been perfected into the absolute sale by executing the document dated 20/05/1970 (Exh.103). 5. The factual matrix of the case is as under: 5.1 The plaintiffs filed suit for redemption of mortgage by conditional sale in respect of the agriculture lands which is the suit lands. The plaintiffs sold the said suit land to defendant executing registered Mortgage Deed by conditional sale for Rs.7.000/-. It was not the deed of conditional sale, simplicitor but it was the deed of conditional sale as conditions of mortgage with the terms that after the expiry of five years from the date of the deed i.e. from 12/3/1968, if the mortgagors repay the of Rs.7,000/- to the defendant, the defendant shall hand over the actual possession of the lands to the plaintiffs. It is contended by the plaintiffs that as the deed of conditional incorporate the terms and conditions, it is not conditional sale simplicitor, but, it is in fact the deed of conditional sale as Ghelabhai died, and the plaintiffs happen to be the legal heirs of Bai Diwali. The plaintiffs handed over the actual possession to the defendant. Thereafter the plaintiffs decided to repay the amount, and therefore, the plaintiff issued registered notice dated 14/2/1984 to the defendant offering the amount of deed of Rs.7.000/- calling upon to redeem the mortgage. But the defendant was not prepared to accept the amount of Rs.7.000/-and not willing to redeem the mortgage and refused to hand over the possession of the lands. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for redemption of mortgage. But the defendant was not prepared to accept the amount of Rs.7.000/-and not willing to redeem the mortgage and refused to hand over the possession of the lands. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for redemption of mortgage. 5.2 The trial court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit field was mortgaged to the defendant ? 2. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has sold this suit field to him for Rs.10,800/- on 20/5/1970 ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for redemption ? 4. To what other reliefs, the plaintiffs entitled to ? 5. What order and decree ? 5.3 The trial court answered the issue Nos.1 and 3 in affirmative while answering issue no.2 in negative and issue no.4 is answered in paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment and decree. 5.4 Both the parties have led their evidence and learned trial court after examining the evidence on record and submissions dismissed the suit with costs. Unsuccessfully challenge before the first appellate court the findings of the trial court is confirmed and thus present Second Appeal is filed. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. Learned Advocate Mr.B C Dave for the appellant after taking this court through the R & P of the suit as well as the evidence led therein submits that the courts below have committed serous; but the gross error in not believing that on execution of the document at Exh.103, the mortgage with conditional sale is crystallized in absolute sale, as such right of the plaintiffs - mortgagor was extinguished. He would further submit that in view of covenant of mortgage-deed (Exh.45), mortgagor – plaintiff had to paid back Rs.7000/- to defendant to redeem the mortgage, within five years from the date of mortgage-deed. 7.1 He would further submit that plaintiff-mortgagor within the first five years of the life of Exh.45 again obtained Rs.3,800/- from the mortgagee and executed the document at Exh.103 giving effect of outright sale of the disputed property in favour of the defendant. This issue has not been taken due care by the court below. 7.1 He would further submit that plaintiff-mortgagor within the first five years of the life of Exh.45 again obtained Rs.3,800/- from the mortgagee and executed the document at Exh.103 giving effect of outright sale of the disputed property in favour of the defendant. This issue has not been taken due care by the court below. He would further submit that the oral evidence on record indicates that plaintiff – mortgagor accepted execution of the document at Exh.103; they have also accepted further amount of Rs.3,800/- and thus total of Rs.10,800/- has been accepted by the plaintiff–mortgagor towards the sale consideration and executed the sale-agreement which turned mortgage with conditional sale into outright sale and as such on execution of document at Exh.103 dated 20/05/1970, the defendant of the suit becomes the absolute owner of the disputed property. He would further submit that on execution of the sale-deed dated 20/05/1970, right of the plaintiff in a disputed property as a mortgagor is extinguished ipso facto. In this circumstances, no cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for redemption. The court below has committed serious; but gross error in disbelieving the document at Exh.103 which otherwise has been accepted by both the parties in their evidence and therefore considering this aspect, it is submitted that the trial court has committed serious error in decreeing the suit which has been confirmed by appellate court in appeal. 7.2 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Dave for the appellant would submit to allow this second appeal by answering the substantial question of law in the favour of the appellant and to quash and set aside the concurrent finding rendered by the courts below to believe that appellant has perfected the title of the disputed property by outright sale. 7.3 Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Ramanandan Singh for the respondents argued on two aspects. Firstly, he submits that in view of Article 61 (a) of the LIMITATION ACT , the suit filed by the plaintiff under O.34 of the CPC is within the time limit. He would further submit that time limit available to the plaintiff for filing the suit for redemption of the mortgage is 30 years from the date the mortgage deed is expired. Taking this court through the mortgage deed at Exh.45, he would further submit that mortgage-deed was executed on 12/03/1968. He would further submit that time limit available to the plaintiff for filing the suit for redemption of the mortgage is 30 years from the date the mortgage deed is expired. Taking this court through the mortgage deed at Exh.45, he would further submit that mortgage-deed was executed on 12/03/1968. He would further submit that conditions therein is to pay back the amount of mortgage money which is obtained in the mortgage is five years from the date of the execution of the mortgage deed; so time limit stated in mortgaged deed expired on 12/03/1973 and the plaintiff is legally permitted to file suit for redemption; 30 years there-from i.e. before 12/03/2003 whereas the present suit is filed in the year 1985 and thus the suit is within the time limit. 7.4 The second limb of argument canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh is that document at Exh.103 has no legal / evidentiary value. He makes this submission on two counts. Firstly, he submitted that value of the transaction stated in Exh.103 is more than hundred rupees and in view of Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908, it requires compulsory registration. He would further submit that since the document itself requires compulsory registration, it cannot be treated as evidence except collateral evidence under Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT for the purpose of claiming possession. He would further submit that even otherwise one of the person viz., Mr.Navghan was minor at the relevant time and he has not signed the document which also makes the document not to be a sale-deed perfecting the outright sale in favour of the defendant. 7.5 In light of the above submissions, while referring and relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ganpati Babji Alamwar (Dead) By Legal Representatives Ramlu & Ors. vs. Digambarrao Venkatrao Bhadke & Ors., [ (2019) 8 SCC 651 ] learned advocate for the respondent would submit that courts below have not committed any error in redeeming the mortgage. He would further submit that plaintiff have given suit notice to the defendant to showcase their readiness and willingness to pay back the mortgage money and since it was usufructuary mortgage, no question to pay interest arises. He would further submit that plaintiff have given suit notice to the defendant to showcase their readiness and willingness to pay back the mortgage money and since it was usufructuary mortgage, no question to pay interest arises. He would also submit that as the suit notice was not complied by the defendant and did not redeem the mortgage, it compelled the plaintiff to file suit before the trial court for redemption of mortgage deed. The trial court passed the decree after accessing and evaluating the evidence on record led by both the parties; which has been confirmed in the first appeal against which the captioned second appeal is preferred; but since there is no question of law which could be said to be substantial question of law, this court should not interfere with the concurrent findings. 7.6 Upon above submissions, learned advocate for respondent would submit to dismiss the present appeal. 8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties in extenso and examined the R & P. 9. What could be noticed after hearing both the parties that execution of document at Exh.45 is not at dispute. Both the parties equally relies upon execution of Exh.45. It is also not in dispute that Exh.45 is mortgage with conditional sale. It was executed qua disputed property between the parties or their ancestors. As per condition of Exh.45, it was agreed that if the mortgagor failed to repay the amount of Rs.7,000/- which he has taken under mortgage-deed; within five years from the date of the execution (12/03/1968), the mortgagor shall be entitled to convert the conditional sale into the absolute sale. 10. The case of the defendant who is mortgagee bouts upon Exh.103. It is claimed by the appellant – defendant that by this deed, the mortgagees have perfected the conditional sale into the outright sale as both the party have accepted execution of Exh.103 after taking Rs.3,800/- in addition to already taken Rs.7,000/-. However, first defect in Exh.103 which could be noticed that, this agreement having transfer of the property value more than hundred rupees admittedly is unregistered document. Defendant no.1 who has entered into the witness box (Exh.95) admitted in cross- examination that he has not the registered agreement at Exh.103. However, first defect in Exh.103 which could be noticed that, this agreement having transfer of the property value more than hundred rupees admittedly is unregistered document. Defendant no.1 who has entered into the witness box (Exh.95) admitted in cross- examination that he has not the registered agreement at Exh.103. While answering the question about why he has not registered Exh.103 agreement on that day or subsequently, the defendant deposed that he was trusting upon the plaintiff as they were cousins and therefore, he has not registered Exh.103. He has also admitted that he has never given expenses of Rs.500/- which could be borne for the purpose of registration of Exh.103. This solomon admission indicates that defendant who is mortgagee was knowing fully well that document at Exh.103 is compulsory registrable document and it requires registration; but since he had some trust developed on the plaintiff, he has not registered Exh.103 document. Be that as it may; fact remains that document Exh.103 relied upon by the appellant to say that by this deed he has acquired title in disputed property is unregistered document. 11. Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT reads thus: “17. Documents of which registration is compulsory. Be that as it may; fact remains that document Exh.103 relied upon by the appellant to say that by this deed he has acquired title in disputed property is unregistered document. 11. Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT reads thus: “17. Documents of which registration is compulsory. (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian REGISTRATION ACT , 1866, or the Indian REGISTRATION ACT , 1871, or the Indian REGISTRATION ACT , 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely, (a) instruments of gift of immovable property; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property; (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent; (e) [ non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:] [Inserted by Act 21 of 1929, Section 10.]Provided that the [State Government] [Substituted by A.O.1950, for "Provincial Government" .] may, by order published in the [Official Gazette] [Substituted by A.O.1937, for "Local Official Gazette" .], exempt from the operation of this sub-section any leases executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.[(1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53-A.] [Inserted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 3 (w.e.f. 24.9.2001).] (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to (i) any composition deed; or (ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock company, notwithstanding that the assets of such company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or (iii) any debenture issued by any such company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except insofar as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or (iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such company; or (v)[any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1- A)] [Substituted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 3, for "any document" (w.e.f. 24.9.2001).] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or (vi) any decree or order of a Court [except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding] [Substituted by A.O.1937, for "and any award" .]; or (vii) any grant of immovable property by the [Government] [Substituted by A.O.1950, for "Crown" .]; or (viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue Officer; or (ix)any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or (x)any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or[(x-a) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or] [Inserted by Act 39 of 1948, Section 2 (w.e.f. 3.9.1948).] (xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or (xii)any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer.[Explanation [Inserted by Act 2 of 1927, Section 2.].a document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.] (3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the first day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered.” 12. Section 17 of the REGISTRATION ACT witnesses a major change in the year 2001 where under the Act 14 of 2001, the amendment took place in Section 17 . Section 17 (1)(a) is added with the explanation. They both come in the statute book with effect from 24/09/2001. However, this amendment is not applicable as far as the present dispute is concerned. 13. In view of section 17(b) of the REGISTRATION ACT , when any right is transferred by any deed, instrument, conveyance or title or interest therein, having a value of Rs.100/- or upwards, it requires compulsory registration. If document is un-registered, it cannot be admitted to evidence, to show that some title or interest is transferred in favour of the person claiming it. May it be used for collateral purpose under section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT , to show as to establish the possession, it cannot pressed into service to claim the title as it is unregistered document. 14. Now, coming back to the case on hand, it is defendant’s case that by virtue of Exh.103, defendant perfected the sale which was conditional as per the conditions in the mortgage deed Exh.45; but since it is unregistered document, this document cannot be treated as evidence to establish that sale is perfected in favour of the appellant. Oral depositions on record indicate that as far as the money which has been given through Exh.45-mortgage deed, it was a hand loan transaction. Thus, it creates creditor-debtor relationship between the parties to mortgage-deed. The defendant has also deposed said thing in chief examination (Exh.95). It also indicates that intention of the party was not to sell property; but to create a mortgage towards the security of hand loan. It is settled principle that once a mortgage, is always a mortgage. Mortgage cannot matured into title. For transfer of the title title, execution of sale-deed as per provision of law is must. 15. In Ganpati Babji Alamwar (Dead) By Legal Representatives Ramlu & Ors. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to Section 58 (c) of the TP Act which defines the mortgage by conditional sale held as under: “9. Mortgage cannot matured into title. For transfer of the title title, execution of sale-deed as per provision of law is must. 15. In Ganpati Babji Alamwar (Dead) By Legal Representatives Ramlu & Ors. (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to Section 58 (c) of the TP Act which defines the mortgage by conditional sale held as under: “9. Section 58 , clause (c) of the Transfer of Property Act defines mortgage by conditional sale as follows: “Where the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged property— on condition that on default of payment of the mortgage money on a certain date the sale shall become absolute, or on condition that on such payment being made the sale shall become void, or on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the transaction is called a mortgage by conditional sale and the mortgagee, a mortgagee by conditional sale; Provided that no such transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale.” 10. Whether an agreement is a mortgage by conditional sale or sale with an option for repurchase is a vexed question to be considered in the facts of each case. The essentials of an agreement, to qualify as a mortgage by conditional sale, can succinctly be summarised. An ostensible sale with transfer of possession and ownership, but containing a clause for reconveyance in accordance with Section 58 (c) of the Act, will clothe the agreement as a mortgage by conditional sale. The execution of a separate agreement for reconveyance, either contemporaneously or subsequently, shall militate against the agreement being mortgage by conditional sale. There must exist a debtor and creditor relationship. The valuation of the property, and the transaction value, along with the duration of time for reconveyance, are important considerations to decide the nature of the agreement. There will have to be a cumulative consideration of these factors, along with the recitals in the agreement, intention of the parties, coupled with other attendant circumstances, considered in a holistic manner. The language used in the agreement may not always be conclusive. 11. In Bhaskar Waman Joshi (deceased) and Ors. There will have to be a cumulative consideration of these factors, along with the recitals in the agreement, intention of the parties, coupled with other attendant circumstances, considered in a holistic manner. The language used in the agreement may not always be conclusive. 11. In Bhaskar Waman Joshi (deceased) and Ors. vs. Shrinarayan Rambilas Agarwal (deceased) and Ors., AIR 1960 SC 301 , the principles for determination of the nature of the document were explained as follows: “7…The question in each case is one of determination of the real character of the transaction to be ascertained from the provisions of the deed viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances. If the words are plain and unambiguous they must in the light of the evidence of surrounding circumstances be given their true legal effect. If there is ambiguity in the language employed, the intention may be ascertained from the contents of the deed with such extrinsic evidence as may by law be permitted to be adduced to show in what manner the language of the deed was related to existing facts.” 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the facts of the present case, an examination of the recitals in the agreement dated 29.04.1971 holistically, including the heading of the document, we are left with no doubt that it was not a sale deed with an option for repurchase but a document of mortgage by conditional sale. An agriculturist will normally not so easily dispose his agricultural land, the source of his survival and livelihood merely for purchases made by him on credit. The dire financial straits of the plaintiffs is evident from the fact that they were left with no option but to mortgage 2½ acres of their agricultural lands for credit purchase of daily necessities. The financial stringency of the plaintiffs is apparent from their failure to repay anything even after execution of the instalment bond. Given the limitations of the plaintiffs because of their poor financial status, the fact that they may not have objected to the mutation so done three years later cannot be considered as sufficient for a contrary interpretation of the agreement dated 29.04.1971, especially when the Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands. In the facts of the case, a debtor and creditor relationship stands clearly established and hardly needs further elucidation. In the facts of the case, a debtor and creditor relationship stands clearly established and hardly needs further elucidation. The limitation for the right to redeem, under Article 61(a) of the LIMITATION ACT 1963, is 30 years. The suit for redemption was therefore within limitation. In the facts of the present case, we do not consider the delay of seven years in filing the suit so fatal, as to disinherit the plaintiff from his agricultural lands.” 16. A useful reference can also be made from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shankar Sakharam Kenjale (Died) Through His Legal Heirs Versus Narayan Krishna Gade And Another 2021 (13) SCC 309 wherein relevant observations are made in paragraph 14 which reads thus: “14. It is well-settled that the right of redemption under a mortgage deed can come to an end or be extinguished only by a process known to law, i.e., either by way of a contract between the parties to such effect, by a merger, or by a statutory provision that debars the mortgagor from redeeming the mortgage. In other words, a mortgagee who has entered into possession of the mortgaged property will have to give up such possession when a suit for redemption is filed, unless he is able to establish that the right of redemption has come to an end as per law. This emanates from the legal principle applicable to all mortgages – “Once a mortgage, always a mortgage.” 17. Perusing Exh.45, it postulates that though document is titled as mortgage by conditional sale, intention of the parties to the deed was to create mortgage as security towards hand loan of Rs.7,000/- given to mortgagor. Condition stipulated therein was to repay Rs.7000/- within five years. The case of mortgagee was that before expiry of five years mortgagor received further amount of Rs.3,800/- and executed document at Exh.103 to convert into sale. However, document at Exh.103 is unregistered document. Extinguishment process of mortgage cannot be done by process known to law. In present case, such process was not done to extinguish the right of the redeem. Hence, decree for redemption is rightly passed by learned court below. Moreover, what further could be noticed that by mortgage-deed the party have created relationship of debtor and creditor. In nutshell, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding arrived at by trial court. 18. Hence, decree for redemption is rightly passed by learned court below. Moreover, what further could be noticed that by mortgage-deed the party have created relationship of debtor and creditor. In nutshell, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding arrived at by trial court. 18. In P.L.Bapuswami Versus N.Pattay Gounder [ AIR 1966 SC 902 ] in paragraph 5 it has been held as under: “5. By sec. 58 (c) of the transfer of Property Act a mortgage by conditional sale is defined as follows: " 58. (c) Where the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged property - On condition that on default of payment of the mortgaged - money on a certain date the sale shall become absolute, or on condition that on such payment being made the sale shall become void or on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the transaction is called a mortgage by conditional sale and the mortgagee a mortgagee by conditional sale: Provided that no such transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale". The proviso to this clause was added by Act 20 of 1929. Prior to the amendment there was a conflict of decisions on the question whether the condition contained in a separate deed could be taken into account in ascertaining whether a mortgage was intended by the principal deed . The Legislature resolved this conflict by enacting that a transaction shall not be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition referred to in the clause is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale. But it does not follow that if the condition is incorporated in the deed effecting or purporting to effect a sale a mortgage transaction must of necessity have been intended. The question whether by the incorporation of such a condition a transaction ostensibly of sale may be regarded as a mortgage is one of intention of the parties to be gathered from the language of the deed interpreted in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale postulates the creation by the transfer of a relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, the price being charged on the property conveyed. The definition of a mortgage by conditional sale postulates the creation by the transfer of a relation of mortgagor and mortgagee, the price being charged on the property conveyed. In a sale coupled with an agreement to reconvey there is no relation of debtor and creditor nor is the price charged upon the property conveyed, but the sale is subject to an obligation to retransfer the property within the period specified. The distinction between the two transactions is the relationship of debtor and creditor and the transfer being a security for the debt, The form in which the deed is clothed is not decisive. The question in each case is one of determination of the real character of the transaction to be ascertained from the provisions of the document viewed in the light of surrounding circumstances. If the language is plain and unambiguous it must in the light of the evidence of surrounding circumstances be given its true legal effect. If there is ambiguity in the language employed, the intention may be ascertained from the contents of the deed with such extrinsic evidence as may by law be permitted to be adduced to show in what manner the language of the deed was related to existing facts. In the present case, the document Ex.B-1 reads as follows: " ... I have settled to sell to you on this day for a sum of Rs. 4,000 the undermentioned immovable properties and have received the consideration of rupees four thousand only, as detailed below:- In the matter of my having directed you yourself to pay the sum of Rs. 2,000 being my half share payable towards the usufructuary mortgage - deed executed on 7.09.1944, in respect of the share of properties detailed below and in respect of some other share of properties, jointly by me and Palani Mooppachi, wife of one Palani Mooppan of the aforesaid place in favour of M. Maniyam P.V. Ramaswami Goundar, son of Venkatachala Goundar, residing in Pattampalyayam village cusba, Palladam taluk for a sum of Rs. 4,000 and registered as document No. 1122 of 1944, Book 1 Volume 210 pages 415 and 416 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Kunnathur to the aforesaid usufructruary mortgagee, get release of the properties mentioned herein and take possession of the same the amount received by me is Rs. 2,000 . 4,000 and registered as document No. 1122 of 1944, Book 1 Volume 210 pages 415 and 416 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Kunnathur to the aforesaid usufructruary mortgagee, get release of the properties mentioned herein and take possession of the same the amount received by me is Rs. 2,000 . The amount which I have received in cash on this day is Rs. 2,000. As in all, I have received the sale consideration of Rs.4,000 as detailed above, you your self shall in future, hold and enjoy absolutely the undermentioned properties. In future neither myself or my heirs shall have any right or future claim, whatever, in respect of these properties. There is no other encumbrance whatever, except the encumbrance mentioned above, in respect of these properties. In case anything is left out, I am bound to get the same discharged from and out of my other properties. Whereof, in all these, and in the well in good condition, situate in Government Survey No. 93/1 and in the coconut, palmyrah, tamarind and wood-apple trees and in the fruit bearing and timber trees, which are in the aforesaid fields, the half-share in common. In future I have neither share nor right, whatever, in the aforesaid fields. The aforesaid Palani Mooppachi shall discharge the above mentioned balance usufructuary mortgage amount of Rs. 2,000 from and out of the balance of the usufructuary of mortgage properties. Should I pay in cash the aforesaid sale consideration of rupees four thousand after a period of five years within a period of seven years from the date of the execution of the deed, during the date of expiry of the said deed of any year (the said properties) should be reconveyed for the very same amount to me This condition is not valid after the aforesaid period” 19. In view of the above, it can safely be concluded that learned court below have not committed any error in redeeming the mortgage. The question of law framed herein above is therefor answered in negative. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal fails to succeed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. R & P be sent back. 21. The question of law framed herein above is therefor answered in negative. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal fails to succeed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. R & P be sent back. 21. After passing of this judgment, learned advocate for the appellant Mr.Dave requests to stay the operation and execution of this judgment for a period of four weeks to enable the appellant to approach the higher forum. 21.1 Request is declined on the ground that mortgagee is waiting for the fruit of decree and possession of the land which the ancestor has mortgaged in the year 1968.