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 the learned Munsif could not take cognizance of the application.

4. The learned Munsif held that the property in suit had been mortgaged by the Applicants with the Defendant and the loan had been paid up by the usufruct of the property. He therefore, passed an order for redemption of the mortgaged property.

5. The Defendant then preferred an appeal to the Civil Judge, Varanasi, who held that the Applicants had failed to prove that the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee existed between the parties and accordingly dismissed the application for redemption. Aggrieved by that order, the Applicants have preferred this revision.

6. The principal contention of the Applicants is that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, because the order of the learned Munsif, was passed under Rule 13(iv) of the UP Regulation of Agricultural Credit Rules, 1941 and no appeal lay from that order.

7. It is accordingly necessary to examine the pertinent provisions of the Act and the Rules, Section 2(6) defines 'loan' as an advance whether in cash or kind, made on or after the first day of June 1940. According to Section 2(12) 'protected land' means with reference to a proprietor liable to pay local rate not exceeding twenty-five rupees per annum, all his land Section 10 directs that the execution of decrees, based on a loan, in which a court has ordered the sale of, or the appointment of a receiver for, any land shall be transferred to the Collector. Section 11(1) provides that if the land against which a decree is sought to be executed was 'protected land' on the date of the loan, the Collector may execute it inter alia by granting to the decree-holder a mortgage of the protected land or any part thereof in the form prescribed by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13. By Sub-section (2) thereof a mortgage granted under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) is made subject to the provisions of Section 14 and to such, conditions consistent with the provisions of Section 15 as the Collector may think fit to impose. The mortgage shall be for such period not exceeding twenty-years as the Collector may prescribe.

Section 13 of the Act reads as follows:

(1) After the commencement of this Act, every mortgage of protected land shall be made only in one of the following forms, namely,--

(a) a usufructuary mortgage for which the mortgagor delivers proprietary possession of the land to the mortgagee and authorises him to retain such possession and to receive the rents and profits of the land in lieu of interest and towards payment of the principal, on the condition that after the expiry of such term not exceeding twenty years, as may be agreed upon, the land shall be re-delivered to the mortgagor.

(b) a mortgage without possession subject to the condition that if the mortga