( 1 ) I agree with the judgments prepared by my learned brothers Misra and Kidwai JJ. that these applns. should be dismissed with costs.

( 2 ) A mtgee. Subject to such terms as may have been agreed upon between him and the mtgor. , cannot be made liable for anything more than the rent realized by him if he has let out the land to tenants at a reasonable rate. The mtgor. cannot complain that the land was let out to tenants and was not cultivated by the mtgee. himself. If the mtgee. undertakes to cultivate the land it is not merely the land but the seeds, manure etc. used by him and his labour that contribute to the profits made. I have already pointed out in the case of Surju Prasad v. Randhir Singh, 1945 O. A. H C. B. 55 that a tenant not only provides seeds and manure but also gives a lot of his time and labour in ploughing and watering the field and in sowing the crops, and he also takes the risk of the possible failure of crops. It will be most unreasonable to give the mtgor. the whole of the profits made by the mtgee. from such land, as if it was the land alone that had contributed to the making of the entire profits. The mtgor. can reasonably claim from the mtgee. the same amount which the mtgee could, with the exercise of ordinary diligence, have realised by letting out the land to tenants.

( 3 ) RENT payable by various classes of tenants vary. The most favourable rate of rent at which the land could be let out must be the fair occupation rent at which profits must be worked out. The circle rates which are periodically prepared by the Revenue Dept. can certainly be treated as relevant evidence. What is the amount which the mtgee. would have realised if he had let out the land on the best terms available must, in each case, be a question of fact to be decided by the Ct. on the materials on the record.

( 4 ) THE question has been fully dealt with by my learned brothers and I have already expressed my views in the cases of Surju Prasad Singh, (1945 O. A. H. C. B. 55) mentioned above and Kashi prasad v. Raghunandan, A. I. R. (35) 1948 ALL. 344: (I. L. R. (1948) ALL. 310), I agree, therefore, with the order proposed.

( 5 ) THESE two applns. arise out of two proceedings Under section 12, U. P. Agriculturists Belief act, instituted by Dara, appct. against Mathura.

( 6 ) PERMANAND, the father of Dara, executed two mtge. deeds in favour of Jaggoo, father of mathura, the first was a possessory mtge. deed executed on 23-7-1904, to secure repayment of a sum of Rs. 70 and the second was a simple mtge executed on 8-12-1920, in consideration of Rs. 135.

( 7 ) ON 23-8-1924, Permanand executed a third mtge. deed with possession in favour of Jaggoo for rs. 400. Rs. 165 were received in cash, Rs. 70 were credited towards the first mtge. and Rs. 165, which included interest amounting to Rs. 30 were credited towards the second mtge. Plots Nos. 1471 and 1576 measuring l Bigha 8 Biswas of under, proprietary land in Balamau, district Hardoi, were mortgaged.

( 8 ) ON 8-8-1943, Permanand, being then dead, Dara applied Under section 12, U. P Agriculturists relief Act, for an order against Jaggoo for redemption of this mtge. without payment on the ground that the deft had, by the appln. of Section 9, Debt Redemption Act, been paid off out of the usufruct. This was numbered as suit No. 199 of 1943.

( 9 ) JAGGOO pleaded that the income of the mortgaged property was so small that it was not even sufficient to satisfy the annual interest calculated at 4 1/2 percent, the rate fixed by Section 9, Debt Redemption Act, and that consequently no portion of the principal had, uptil then been paid.

( 10 ) ON the same date as he filed suit no. 199, Dara filed another appln. (Suit No. 200 of 1943) for an order for redemption without any payment of another possessory mtge. granted by Permanand in favour of Jaggoo on 25-2-1916, in consideration of a sum of Rs. 200 The plots covered by this mtge, are under proprietary plots No. 6 and 1799, measuring l Bi