John Stanley, C.J. and William Burkitt, J.
1. We are of opinion that the learned District Judge rightly decided the appeal before him. From a perusal of the mortgage which has given rise to this suit it appears to us that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from it is that the intention of the parties was to provide for the realization of the mortgage debt from the property itself and not inertly from its usufruct. The deed in fact was of the nature of a simple mortgage, as well as of a usufructuary mortgage. The case in fact resembles more that of Jafar Husen v. Ranjit Singh (1898) I.L.R. All. 4 than that of Kashi Ram v. Sardar Singh (1905) I.L.R. 28 All. 157. In the first mentioned of these cases the Court came to the conclusion that the intention of the parties was that the debt was realizable by sale of the mortgaged property, whereas in the other case, this Bench was of opinion that the mortgage in said was merely a usufructuary mortgage. For these reasons we dismiss the appeal with costs.