BEG, C.J. :-This reference has been made in First Appeal No. 456 of 1956, which was filed by the two appellants, namely, Smt. Brij Raj Kumari, widow of Th. Gajendra Shah, and Th. Bikram Shah, son of Th. Gajendra Shah. The respondent in this appeal is Raja Mohamad Mustafa Ali Khan. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by Raja Mohammad Mustafa Ali Khan, as plaintiff' against Smt. Brij Raj Kumari and Th. Bikram Shah, as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of a mortgage deed dated the 29th January, 1946. On the date of the execution of the aforesaid deed the estate of the appellants was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, Shahjahanpur, and the estate of the respondent was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, Gonda. Accordingly, the mortgagor in the deed of mortgage was the Court of Wards, Shahjahanpur, charged with the superintendence of the estate of Smt. Brij Raj Kumari and Th. Bikram Shah, and the mortgagee in the deed was the Court of Wards, Gonda, charged with the superintendence of the estate of Raja Mohammad Mustafa Ali Khan. It is not necessary to specify the terms of the mortgage as they are not relevant for our purpose.

2. The present appeal arises out of the suit filed for the enforcement of the aforesaid mortgage by Raja Mohammad Mustafa Ali Khan against Smt. Brij Raj Kumari and Th. Bikram Shah on the 11th March, 1955. The main pleas taken in this suit on behalf of the defendants were that they were entitled to the benefit of the U.P. Zamindars" Debt Reduction Act, and the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of Clause (f) of Sec. 2 of the said Act are invalid, being in conflict with Art. 14 of the Constitution. Issues Nos. 2 and 6 framed by the trial Court relate to these pleas. They run as follows :-

"2. Is the defendant entitled to the benefit of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act ? If so, to what benefit ?

6. Whether the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of Clause (f) of Sec. 2 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act are invalid being in conflict with Art. 14 of the Constitution ? If so, its effect ?"

On the above issues the trial Court held that sub-clause (vi) of Clause (f) of Sec. 2 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act was not in conflict with Art. 14 of the Constitution, and that hence the defendants were not entitled to the benefits of the U.P Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. The trial Court, accordingly, by its judgement dated the 5th of March, 1966, decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 60,000 with the usual provision for pendente lite and future interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. There was a further direction that the decretal amount was to be paid within six months; and, in default of payment within the aforesaid period, the realisation of the same was to be made by the sale of the Zamindari abolition compensation bonds of the defendants according to prescribed law in respect thereof. Dissatisfied with the said judgement and decree, the defendants have filed the present appeal.

3. This appeal was initially heard by a Division Bench consisting of Oak and Seth, JJ. The question regarding the invalidity of sub-clause (vi) of Clause (f) of Sec. 2 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act was the main point argued before the said Bench. This question had previously tome up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Nand Ram v. Kishori Raman Singh, AIR 1962 All 521. In that case it was held by the Division Beach that Clause (f) of Sec. 2 of the Act was not discriminatory. In view, however, of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mukan Chand. AIR 1964 SC 1633, the Bench was of opinion that the decision of this Court in Nand Ram's case, AIR 1962 All 521, needed reconsideration. It accordingly referred the case to a larger Bench. Thereafter, the case was fixed before a Bench of three Judges, namely, Oak, Gyanendra Kumar and Seth JJ. When the case was heard by them, the learned Advocate-General contended t