1. The only question raised by these two connected appeals is as to the interpretation of a document. That was an agreement between a tenant of the names of Bhola and his land-holder as to the terms on which Bhola would be permitted to plant a grove. The parties are agreed that Bhola was to become the owner of one quarter of the grove, subject only to such restrictions as were laid down in the agreement itself. One of these restrictions was that he should not sell this one quarter of the grove to any stranger, but only to the proprietor by whose permission the grove was to be planted or to co-sharers of such proprietor. As a matter of fact there has been no sale of the share in question, but only a mortgage, and the solo point for us to determine is whether this prohibition in terms directed only against a sale must be read, either by necessary implication, or on a view of the position of the parties and the terms of the document as a whole, as being also a covenant against mortgaging. The learned Judge of this Court has held that the prohibition is directed against a sale to an outsider, and that the proprietary rights which Bhola was to take under the agreement could not be further modified except by express covenant. He holds that there was no covenant against mortgaging. In our opinion he was right in so deciding. This finding determines both the appeals, which we dismiss accordingly with costs.