HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J.

1. The petitioners have obtained a rule from this Court as to why the order passed by the respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Samastipur, dated 10-7-1976, (Annexure-1) under Sec.12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1975, be not quashed and cancelled. The said order was passed on an application of respondents Nos. 4 to 8 who are the purchasers of the equity of redemption of the usufructuary mortgage bond dated 5-3-1915, executed by the original owner of the lands in question, namely, Nirsu Chamar. The said mortgage bond was executed in favour of the ancestors of the two petitioners, namely, Bhabi Mahto and Bikan Mahto, for a sum of Rs. 794/- A copy of the mortgage bond bas been made Annexure-2 to the writ application.

2. When the matter was placed earlier before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of H.P. Jha and V. Mishra, JJ., it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the mortgage itself was not subsisting, and the right of redemption having been lost to the mortgagor by lapse of time, the application under Sec.12 of the Money Lenders Act was not maintainable, Reliance was placed in support of this contention on a Bench decision of this court in the case of Ram Rup Kuer V/s. State of Bihar, 1978 0 BBCJ(HC) 282. The learned Judges expressed doubts regarding the correctness of the aforesaid Bench decision in Ram Rup Kuers case and accordingly referred the case to a larger Bench for consideration al the correctness of the said decision. In the opinion of the learned Judges the "provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply in such cases" as nowhere in the Act or the Rules it is stated that the provisions of the Limitation Act shall apply for recovery of possession of the mortgaged lands. They were further of the opinion that even if a suit was barred under the Limitation Act, then also the special provisions of Sec.12 of the Money Lenders Act would apply for the benefit of the mortgagors.

3. With great respect to them, I must at the very outset express my inability to appreciate their reasonings for doubting the correctness of Ram Rup Kuers case, particularly when on the facts of this case there was no question of applying the said case, and I also must state that the learned counsel appearing for neither party supported the views expressed by the learned Judges. Nonetheless, I would discuss this case in brief. There, on reference to some authorities of different High Courts, it was held that after the expiry of the period of limitation for redemption of a mortgage, the remedy of the mortgagor to recover possession of the mortgaged property was extinguished as well as his right and interest in the said property.

4. Now I may refer to the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the Limitation Act and the Bihar Money Lenders Act, Section 80 of the Transfer of Property Act gives the mortgagors the right to redeem the mortgage generally and Section 82 deals specifically with usufructuary mortgages. The right to redeem is conferred upon the mortgagor by statute of which he can be deprived only by means of and in the manner laid down for that purpose long strictly complied with, as was held by the Judicial Committee in the case of Raghunath V/s. Mt. Hansraj, AIR 1934 PC 205. The Judidal Committee again in the case of Shah Ram Chand V/s. Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1942 PC 50 reiterated that the right to redeem was available only upon the terms stated in Sec. 60. Kania, C.J., speaking for the Federal Court in the case of Theta China Sub Rao V/s. Matapalli Raju, AIR 1950 FC 1, observed that it was obvious that the right to redemption was an indent of a subsisting mortgage and subsisted so long as the mortgage itself subsisted. This right could be extinguished only as was provided in a 80. According to Sec. 60 of the T.P. Act the mortgagor has right on payment or tender of the mortgage money at any time after the principal money has become due, to required the mortgagee to return