1. We are unable to agree with the District Judge in holding that the sale was void for the reason that no arrear was due on the particular land sold. It is true that in the patta the sum stipulated for by way of rent is shown to be made up of smaller sums payable in respect of the various items of land. But in our opinion these particulars are only given for convenience and it is not intended that what is one patta in form should stand for several pattas for the several pieces of land. Only one sum, viz. Rs. 1-11-7 is given as payable on account of road-cess for the whole land and in the operative part of the patta itself the greater sum only is mentioned. It is then contende on the respondent's behalf that as the mortgage in favor of the 5th defendant which, is a usufructuary mortgage is found to be genuine and as the plaintiff has not asked to redeem, the suit being in ejectment must be dismissed. Following the decision in Ohandu v. Kombi I. L. R. 9 M. 208 we must allow the contention.
2. The appeal therefore must be dismissed, each party to pay his own costs.