Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAI, J. : We allowed Civil Appeal No. 533 of 1960 on May 4, 1962* by our Judgment dealing with the facts of the case and giving the reasons for the opinion expressed. It is not necessary to repeat them.

2. Suffice it to say that the appeal was allowed on the ground that the respondents had lost their right to recover possession from the appellants on their estate vesting in the State of Bihar by virtue of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950), hereinafter called the Act, and their having no subsisting right to recover possession from the appellants. It was also held that they could not get advantage of the provisions of cl. (c) of sub s. (1) of S. 6 of the Act, as amended by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act XVI of 1959) as no mortgage subsisted on the date of vesting. The amended cl. (c) reads as follows :

(c) Lands used for agricultural or horticultural purposes forming the subject matter of a subsisting mortgage on the redemption of which the intermediary is entitled to recover khas possession thereof."

3. It is contended for the respondents, who applied for the review of our Judgment, that our view that the mortg