A. L. Vaidya, J.—One Shri Kanhya Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff and pro forma defendants have become owners in possession of the suit land as described in the plaint on the ground that the suit land was mortgaged with the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and proforma defendants for more than forty years ago and by means of efflux of time, the right to redeem enjoyed by the defendants mortgagors has been extinguished. The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded had been that plaintiffs and proforma defendants were in actual physical possession of the suit land and defendant Smt. Devku was the last mortgagor of the said land. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendants by undue influence and by fraud got a gift deed in respect of the mortgaged land and upon the strength of that void gift deed they applied to the Assistant Collector, Kandaghat under section 4 of the Redemption of the Mortgage Act and got a redemption order on 23-1-1978 whereby the learned Collector ordered the redemption of the suit land and delivery of its possession to the defendants. Plaintiffs also averred that the order of the Collector dated 23-1-1978 was void, illegal and without jurisdiction for the reasons that the mortgage had already become barred by time and was not redeemable, the amount of the mortgage money was not deposited in accordance with law. It was also pleaded that the Collector ignored the fact that a civil suit was pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Kandaghat filed by Smt. Devku challenging the validity of the gift deed alleged to have been executed by her and from which the defendants are alleged to have derived their title. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Assistant Collector otherwise had no jurisdiction to decide the complicated and intricate questions of law in such a summary way under the provisions of the Himacha1 Pradesh Redemption of Mortgages Act and the matter was required to be left to the adjudication of the civil court. Through the suit the plaintiffs sought the declaration that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants had become owners in possession of the suit land by lapse of time. The mortgage having not been redeemed within the stipulated period and on that account, it was prayed that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 23-1-1978 be declared to be void and illegal. As a consequential relief, permanent injunction had been sought for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. It was also prayed that in case in pursuance of the order passed by the Assistant Collector the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are dispossessed, a decree for possession in that event may be passed.

2. The suit was contested and the averments made in the plaint as pleaded were not admitted. The parties were put to trial on the following issues by the trial Court:—

1. Whether the mortgage in question has become time-barred, if so, its effect? OPP. 2.Whether the defendants are not entitled or redemption as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade is null and void as alleged? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as alleged? OPP.

5. Whether the suit is not competent? OPP.

6. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is collusive as alleged? OPD.

8. Whether the plaint is not properly valued for court-fees and jurisdiction as alleged? OPD.

9. Relief.

3. Issues No. 1 to 3 were disposed of in favour of the plaintiff, while under issue No. 4 it was held that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed and they were entitled to possession. Issues No. 5, 7 and 8 were decided against the defendants for want of evidence. Issue No. 6 was decided in the negative. The trial Court as such passed a decree for possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The aforesaid judgment and