JUDGMENT

Gokul Prasad, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of arrears of revenue u/s 160 of the Tenancy Act. The plaintiff was a usufructuary mortgagee of the defendant's share under two mortgages of the 14th June 1913 and the 12th December 1913 respectively. The defendant made a simple mortgage of his property in the year 1324 and the staple mortgagee paid up the usufructuary mortgage of the plaintiff dated, the 12th of December 1913. The mortgage of the 14th of June 1913 was not redeemed. The plaintiff's name continued, to be recorded as mortgagee notwithstanding the fact that one of the mortgages had been redeemed. He had to pay the Government revenue for the years 1324 and 1325 Fasli. He now sues, for recovery of the proportionate amount of the money which he had to pay on account of that share of the defendant which had already been redeemed, the defence was that the plaintiff was in possession of the whole of the mortgaged property and the suit, therefore, did not lie. The first Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's name continued to be recorded as mortgagee and, further, that the plaintiff was in possession and dismissed the plaint