JAGDISH SAHAI, J. :- This defendant's appeal has come to us on a reference made by our brothers W. Broome and G. C. Mathur.

2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for the ejectment of the defendants from certain plots of agricultural land on the allegation that they (the plaintiffs-respondents) were the Sirdars of the plots in suit. It was alleged that about thirty years next preceding the date of the filing of the suit the ancestors of the plaintiffs-respondents had borrowed a sum of Rs. 200/- from the ancestors of the defendants and had executed an unregistered mortgage deed for the same and on the basis of that transaction the defendants' ancestors were put in possession over the land in suit. It has been pleaded that the entire mortgage debt has been satisfied through the receipt of profits of the disputed land by the ancestors of the defendants and thereafter the defendants themselves. Relief of rendition of account and delivery of possession was claimed by the plaintiffs.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia on the ground that they were sub-tenants of the plots in dispute by virtue of the provisions of U.P. Act XX of 1954 and had by the operation of law become Sirdars of the same.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs the first appellate Court decreed the suit, subject to the plaintiffs depositing a sum of Rs. 200/-on the finding that the amount of debt had not been satisfied from the usufruct.

5. The defendant appellant then filed the instant second appeal which came up for hearing before one of us (Yashodanandan, J.), who referred it to a larger Bench which referred it to us.

6. The sole question that features consideration, and that has been canvassed at the bar before us is whether the defendant-appellant is a mere licensee of the plots in dispute or he has become an Asami thereof.

7. We have heard Mr. K. P. Singh for the defendant-appellant and Mr. Bharatji Agarwal for the plaintiffs-respondents.

8. Section 21 (1) (d) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads:

"21(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, occupied or held land as- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(d) a mortgagee in actual possession from a person belonging to any of the classes mentioned in clauses (b) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 or clauses (i) to (vii) and (ix), Section 19,

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

shall be deemed to be an asami thereof."

9. Sri K. P. Singh has contended that the word"mortgagee" as occurring in clause (d) of Section 21 (1) of the Act must not be confined in its meaning to valid or legal mortgages only, but should also include cases in the nature of mortgages or akin to mortgages which, even though not valid, have been entered into as transactions of mortgages. Learned counsel relies upon Clause (iv) of Sec. 19 of the Act which reads:-

"19. All land, held or deemed to have been held on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting by any person... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... as- (iv) a hereditary tenant,

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... shall, save in cases provided for in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 18, be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such person, who shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled except as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 18, to take or retain possession as a Sirdar thereof."

It is significant to note that this provision does not require a hereditary tenant to possess the right of sale as is required by Section 18. Sri K. P. Singh contends that clause (d) o