JUDGMENT

Dwivedi, J. - It is a revision u/s 115, CPC by Sunni and others. It has come to us for disposal on a reference by our brother Bishambhar Dayal, J.

2. The Applicants Sled an application under Rule 13(iv) of the UP Regulation of Agricultural Credit Rules before the Additional Munsif, Varanasi, for the redemption of certain mortgaged property on the allegations that they were its proprietors, that it was mortgaged with the Defendant for a loan of Rs. 99/- on 1st June 1940, that it was a protected land within the meaning of that term in the UP Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act, No. XIV of 1940, (hereinafter called the Act), that the money secured by the mortgage was a loan within the meaning of that term in the Act, that they were agriculturists within the meaning of that term in the UP Debt Redemption Act, XIII of 1940, that they were entitled to the benefits of the two Acts and the mortgage was liable to be redeemed.

3. The Defendant inter alia alleged that the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee did not exist between the parties, that the Applicants had set up a false case that he was in possession of the disputed property as a tenant and not as a mortgagee and that th