AGARWALA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defts. second appeal in a suit for accounting under section 33, U. P. Agriculturists belief Act, read with Section 9, U. P. Debt Redemption Act.

( 2 ) ONE Mohan Singh executed a usufructuary mtge. on 31-10-1901, for a sum of Rs. 199/- in favour of Beni Prasad and Mangal Prasad. The mortgaged property consisted of 11 Biswansi, 14 kachwansi, 9 Nanwansi and 11 7/9 Athwansi zamindari share including two groves in village. Kalauli, pargana Halamau, tahsil Sandila, district Hardoi. After the execution of the mtge. two deeds of further charge were executed by Mohan Singh in favour of the mtgees.- one on 20-8-1902, for Rs. 50/- and the other on 6-6-1902,, for Rs. 40/ -. The original mtgor. Mohan singh died and was succeeded by his widow, Srimati Ram Kuer. The latter transferred the mortgaged property, with the exception of certain specific plots including one of the groves and the trees standing, thereon, in favour of the pltf. respondent by means of a sale deed dated 18-8-1911. In the sale deed executed by Srimati Ram Kuer no amount was left with the vendees for payment of the amount due under the usufructuary mtge. and the deeds; of further charge. Indeed, no mention of any of the encumbrances was made and the property was sold free from these encumbrances. The original mtgees. also died and the defts. applts. are their legal representatives.

( 3 ) THE pltf. respalleged that the original mtgor. was an agriculturist on the date of the loan and that he (the pltf.) was also an agriculturist, on the date of the suit and that he was entitled to the benefit of the Agriculturists Relief Act and the Debt Redemption Act and claimed accounting in accordance with the principles laid down Under section 9, Debt Redemption Act. According to him the entire mtge. debt had been paid off. The deft, l alone contested the suit on the ground that the pltf. being a transferee, had no right to get the benefits of the Debt Redemption Act, because the loan had ceased to be a loan in his hands, and further the profits of the property were meagre and that the whole of the debt advanced under the principal mtge. as well as under the two deeds of further charge was still due and payable.

( 4 ) THE Munsif held that the loan still retained the character of loan, because there being no mention in the sale deed of the mtge. and the further charges, there was no contract between the borrower and the transferee whereby any liability for the re-payment of the loan had been transferred to the transferee within the definition of loan in Section 2 (9), Debt Redemption Act. He further found that the debt had been entirely paid off and gave a declaration to that effect. The lower appellate Ct. confirmed these findings. It, however, was of the opinion that the loan had ceased to be a loan because the transfer of the mortgaged property was only partial.

( 5 ) THE defts. filed a second appeal in this Ct. The appeal came up before my brother, Misra J. , who refd. it to a Bench and the Bench, on account of the apparent conflict; of authority in the decisions of the Allahabad H. C. and of the late Chief Ct. of Oudh, was of opinion that the case may be decided by a F. B. of five Judges.

( 6 ) THE only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the transaction in respect of which accounting is sought does or does not constitute a loan within the meaning of Section 2 (9), U. P. Debt Redemption Act.

( 7 ) ON account of the well-known economic slump of the years 1929 and 1930 great distress was caused among the agricultural community. To relieve agriculturists from their indebtedness an act was passed in the year 1934. This was the Agriculturists Relief Act. It provided for reduction of interest according to a certain scale and also for payment of debts due by agriculturists by instalments. Another Act was passed in the same year to give relief to landlords- big or small. This was the Encumbered Estates Act. Experience showed that the provisions of