Judgement

SEN, J. :- The short question involved in this appeal on certificate is whether a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was right in following the decision of an earlier Division Bench in Barhu Singh v. Kharpattu, 1956 All LJ 87 : (AIR 1956 All 436), which was later reiterated in Samharu v. Dharamraj Pandey, 1969 All LJ 943: (AIR 1970 All 350) (FB), that a usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy holding was not valid as a mortgage with all its incidents and subject to the provisions of the law relating to usufructuary mortgages, but was valid only to the limited extent that the mortgagee was entitled only to retain possession of the land mortgaged till there was repayment of the mortgage debt.

2. The question arose in proceedings in a suit under S. 202 of the, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 for possession on payment of the mortgage money brought by, respondent 1 Bansi claiming himself to be an heir of the original mortgagors Sheo Balak and Ram Phal, on the ground that the appellants who were the successors-in-interest of the original mortgagee Bhairo Singh, had become asamis, and therefore liable to ejectment under S. 21(l)(d) of the Act. The suit wa