( 1 ) THIS application in revision has been referred to this Bench by a learned single Judge of this court because, as we shall show hereinafter, this case raises a question on which there is a conflict of opinion in this Court.

( 2 ) THIS revision arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiffs presented an application under Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act for redemption of certain zamindari property mortgaged by their predecessor-in-interest. They impleaded in this application one, Ram Adhin, who is now dead and is represented in this revision by his heirs and legal representatives, as a person who they alleged had been put up fictitiously by the mortgagee and who pleaded that he was a tenant of the land in his own right and not a person put up fictitiously by the mortgagee. The trial Court framed lour issues and decreed the suit holding that a sum of Rs. 1660/- was due from the mortgagors to the mortgagee and that, on payment of that sum, the mortgagors would be entitled to redeem the property. It further found that the patta in favour of Ram Adhin was not a genuine one. According to the learned Munsif, it was a farzi document. He further found that ram Adhin had not acquired any adverse possession and was, indeed, not in adverse possession of the property at all. From that decree of the trial Court, defendant 4 went in appeal to the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal, holding that the decree against defendant 4 should be set aside. In doing so, he stated that he was following the case of -- jagannath Sahu v. Srikant dube, AIR 1949 All 589 (A ). He found that there was a difference of opinion between the former and the later view of this Court and, quite rightly, he followed the later decision of this court. Having regard to the view that he was taking, he felt it was neither necessary for him to go into the question whether the tenancy of the appellant before him was genuine or fictitious, nor to consider whether a reference to the revenue Court was permissible or not on the ground that a question of tenancy right was involved. From that decree of the learned District Judge the plaintiffs have come up in revision to this Court.

( 3 ) WHEN the case came up before a learned single Judge of this Court, he found that the view of the learned District Judge that the decisions of this Court were not unanimous on the point which had been raised before the learned District Judge was correct. As the question, in the opinion of the learned single Judge, was of some importance, he decided to refer it to a Division Bench.

( 4 ) THE question for our consideration is whether, in a suit for redemption under Section 12, agriculturists Relief Act, it is open to the civil Court to determine the question whether the mortgagee has put up a fictitious person as a tenant to prevent the mortgagor from obtaining possession over the mortgaged property. I We shall now proceed to consider this question. The application has been argued with commendable thoroughness by learned counsel for both the parties and the relevant law has been placed before us for our consideration. The first case to which our attention has been invited is that of, -- ram Kirpal v. Bhagwati saran, AIR 1949 All 380 (B ). In this case it was observed by Bhargava J. that in a suit for redemption under Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act, the civil Court could determine the question whether the mortgagee had put up a fictitious person as a tenant to prevent the mortgagor from obtaining possession over the mortgaged property. The learned Judge pointed out that proceedings under Section 12, Agriculturists Relief Act were in the nature of a suit it having been so held in the case of -- jawahir v. Jadu, AIR 1949 All 120 (C ). The paramount consideration with Bhargava J. appears to have been, though it is not stated by him explicitly, that it was desirable to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He was of the opinion that the caus