Order :- This revision application is filed by the mortgagors and arises out of proceedings under S. 12, Agriculturists Relief Act.

2. In order to properly appreciate the controversy it will be necessary to set out the pedigree of the parties.

3. On 23rd April 1920 a mortgage with possession was made by Ram Samujh Singh and Ram Dutt Singh under the guardianship of Dilao Kuar in favour of Ajodhya Singh and Ganpat Singh in respect of two plots, 494 second settlement = 569 third settlement and 330 second settlement = 407 third settlement for Rs. 190. The application, for redemption was made by Ram Dutt Singh against ten persona Ajodhya Singh, Amrej Sing and Mata Prasad Singh, (the two sons of Nageshwar Singh), Dalpat Singh, Ganpat Singh, Jokhai Singh, Mahadeo Singh, Ram Samujh Singh, Vidya Kuar and Rajpati Kuar. Dalpat Singh and Vidya Kuar died during the pendency of the revision application and their legal representatives were not brought on the record. The reason for impleading persons other than the mortgagees as defendants given in para 8 of the plaint was that as Jokhai Singh and Mahadeo Singh and the sons of Jokhai Singh had acquired the mortgagee rights out of the joint family funds and all the descendants of Jagar Nath were members of the joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara and they were in possession of the mortgaged property, they were necessary parties to the suit. In the present revision application we are concerned only with plot No. 569. The material defence in respect of this plot was that Mahadeo Singh had no connection whatever with the mortgagees, that he was in possession as a tenant on a rental of Rs. 6 per annum and was entitled to retain possession as such.

4. The Assistant Collector before whom the suit was filed framed among others the following material issue :-

(1) Whether Mahadeo Singh is the tenant of plot No. 569?

He held that Mahadeo Singh had an interest in the property mortgaged and he was not in possession as a tenant but as mortgagee. He decreed redemption.

5. The learned District Judge on appeal held that there was no reliable evidence to show that the mortgage money was advanced from the joint family funds and therefore Mahadeo Singh was not a joint mortgagee of the land in suit.

He accordingly held that"the mortgagors-applicants should not, therefore, be entitled to actual possession of the said plot without determining the tenancy of Mahadeo Singh".

6. The mortgagors aggrived by the decision have filed this revision and the sole ground mentioned is"that Mahadeo Singh having been found to be the own uncle of Ajodhya Singh and forming a joint Hindu family with him in execution of the patta with respect to the plot in suit in his favour cannot confer any tenancy rights so as to defeat the right of the applicant to present possession after redemption".

7. As already stated during the pendency of this revision, Dalpat Singh and Vidya Kuar died and their legal representatives were not brought on the record. Though O. XXII, Civil P. C. does not apply to a revision application, it has been held that if after the admission of a revision a party dies and no application for substitution is presented within a reasonable time the application for revision abates in the sense that the proceedings shall cease unless good cause for delay is shown. Khuda Bakhsh v. Mahanand Tewari, 1947 Oudh WN 221. No application for substitution was made in this case and the names were removed, but it is contended on behalf of the applicants that the revision cannot abate for the contest in the present revision is not between the mortgagors and the mortgagees in which were included Dalpat Singh and Vidya Kuar deceased and therefore there can be no question of conflicting decrees. This contention in my opinion has force. The deceased, who were impleaded as being interested in the mortgaged property were added as pro forma parties and the real contest is between the mortgagors on the one hand and Mahadeo Singh as a tenant on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document