JUDGMENT

Malik, CJ. - This is a civil revision u/s 115 of the CPC against an other passed by the learned District Judge of Ghazipur holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saidpur, had no jurisdiction to entertain an application u/s 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists; Relief Act. On 17th September, 1900, a mortgage was executed by Durga Singh in favour of the predecessors in interest of the defendants. Durga Singh is dead. He had five sons, Janki Singh, Birju,, Kishan Shishpal and Deoki. The shares of Deoki and Shispal have passed to the defendant-mortgagees by transfer. The integrity of the mort-gage was thus broken and after the breaking of: the integrity of: the mortgage Birju redeemed his share on payment of Rs.. 200/-. The shares of Janki... and Kishan only remained. The legal representatives of Kishan end Janki filed an application u/s 12 for the redemption of their shares. The redemption was allowed by the trial court of Kishan's share, but not of the share of Janki on the grounds that. Janki's share had already been foreclosed. On appeal the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the application was not entertainable by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saidpur.

2. The relevant provision of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act in Section 10, is as follows:

Applications under this chapter, if the principal money secured does not exceed Rs. 500/-, "be brought before the Collector, and the word, 'Court' in this chapter shall in such cases include the Collector'.

3. The short point for consideration is the meaning of the Words 'principal money secured'. If 'principal money secured means the amount originally borrowed, then of course the decision is right. If the words 'principal money-secured'; mean the amount that had remained due on the date of the application, then the decision must be upset. The words 'principal money secured to my mind can reason-ably mean only the amount borrowed under the mortgage. There is no doubt that there was one mortgage here for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and the fact, that the integrity of the mortgage was later broken up by reason of the fact that the mortgagee acquired the interest of two of the sons of the original mortgagor Durga Singh, will not relate back to the date of the mortgage and make the mortgage, divisible into five mortgages of 17th September, 1900. The principal money secured on the date of the mortgage was, therefore, Rs. 1000/-. If the Legislature had intended. that the jurisdiction of the Collector would be determined by the amount that had remained due on the date when the application u/s 12 was filed, then instead. of the words the principal money secured the Legislature might well have used the words 'the Principal money remaining due or remaining unpaid'. I am satisfied that the intention was that the jurisdiction of the Collector would depend upon the amount originally borrowed and if the amount was less than Rs. 500/- then the Collector would have jurisdiction to entertain the application not. I find that I have taken more or less the same view in the case of (sic) v. Sultan Khan (1) In that view the decisions of the lower court is right and the revision must fall. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs.