After having heard learned counsel for the appellant for some time and having considered some of the decisions bearing on the point, we think that there should be an authoritative ruling on the construction of section 9-A (10) (ii) (b) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act in its application to facts such as are present in the case before us. This reference however, should not be understood to mean that we are convinced that any of the decisions cited to us requires reconsideration. The question which has been raised in this case is likely to arise in numerous other cases relating to usufructuary mortgages, and the language of the provision referred to above is by no means clear In the circumstances, we think that the best course is to post the Letters Patent Appeal before a Full Bench for decision. Ordered accordingly.

In pursuance of the order of reference the appeal then came on for hearing before a Full Bench (Rajamannar, C.J., Ramachandra Iyer and Venkatadri, JJ.).

R. Sundaralingam, for Appellant.

R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar and V. Ratnam, for Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Ramachandra Iyer, J.-This appeal, which involves the determination of