1. The Subordinate Judge has agreed with the District Munsif in finding that the Kanom sued on is not proved to be genuine. But he has nevertheless given plaintiff a decree on the ground that Exhibits A, B, C & E, contain ad-missions of 1st defendant and his brother being Kanomdal, under those through whom plaintiff claims, and that these, are i admissions made within the statutory period so as to prevent the plaintiff's claim to redeem being time barred. We agree with West J, in Govindrav Deshmuk v. Bagho Deshmukh I.L.R. (1884) Section 548 in holding that a plaintiff failing to establish the mortgage on which the suit was based should not be allowed to fall back upon some other as to which admissions may have been made by the defen-dants in other proceedings. In Unnian v. Rama I.L.R. (1884) M. 415 the decree was passed on a mortgage expressly pleaded, and relied on by the defendant; so also in Unicha Kandyib Kunhi Kutti Nair v. Valia Pidigail Kimhanied Kutti Maraccar 4 M.H.C.R. 359
2. We therefore set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif.
3. Respondents must pay appellant's costs in this Court and in the lower appellate Court.