( 1 ) IN these two cases a point of law arises on which two views are possible. Mortgages were made of occupancy tenancies, and it is now well settled that such mortgages are void. The mortgagors filed suits under Section 33, U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act, for accounts on the ground that out of the usufruct of the property the whole of the mortgage debt was satisfied. A full Bench of this Court in Ghassu v. Babu Ram, 1944 A. L. J. 1 had held that though a mortgage of occupancy holdings was void, being contrary to the provisions of the D. P. Tenancy act, an application for redemption of such a mortgage could be made under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act. The point was referred to a Bench of five Judges in Mahabal Singh v. Ram Raj, and the decision of the R. B. is reported in 1950 A. L. J. 713. It was held in that case that a usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy holding by a tenant was void but a mortgagor was entitled to bring a suit in a civil Court, for possession of the property and in such a suit he would be entitled to get possession if he paid the amount due under his mortgage, but that the provisions of Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act, would not app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document