1. A suit for redemption was decreed. The appellant was a party as defendant to the suit because he was in possession. In appeal the argument advanced is that the mortgage was to continue for 30 years from 17th December, 1906, and, therefore, the suit was premature. We, however, find that the appellant has no title to possession and cannot resist the suit for redemption. His case was that the widow of the mortgagee Bhagwanta Lonia put him in possession of the property in lieu of some money due to him from Bhagwanta. There was, however, no registered deed of transfer.
2. A large number of rulings was produced before us. We have read them all. They are all based on the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council, in the case of Mahomed Musa v. Aghore Kumar Ganguli  42 Cal. 801. That ruling does not imply that a transfer under such circumstances as existed in the present case, could be made without a registered document. We agree with the observations of Mr. Justice Piggott in Salamat-uz-zamani Begum v. Masha Allah Khan  40 All. 187. The observations are at page 196; where the statute requires that a particular kind of transfer, as for instance a mortgage, shall be effected by a particular kind of instrument, it seems to us that their Lordships have always enforced such a provision with great stringency. We hold that the appellant has no title to the property, and, therefore, cannot resist the suit for redemption.
3. We dismiss the appeal with costs which shall include fees here on the higher scale.