Possession of mortgagees in land disputes is deemed permissive, ceasing to be adverse post-mortgage extinguishment under relevant Acts, hence limitations governed by those acts apply.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

This writ petition involves a title dispute, arising out of objections filed under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953").

2. On the basis of record available it is not much disputed that in basic year names of original petitioners herein were recorded having equal share on land in dispute. Original contesting-respondents have filed three sets of objections claiming their right, details thereof are as follows:

(I) First set of objections were filed by original Respondent-2 (Bateshwar), claiming that petitioners were fixed rent tenants on his 1/3 share of land in dispute. His predecessors have mortgaged said share to ancestors of opposite parties and has objected their claim that on enforcement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950") they become Sirdar and after depositing 10 times of rent, Bhumidhari sanad was also issued, i.e., became Bhumidhar.

(II) Second set of objections were filed by Mst. Ramdei, original Respondent-7 that respondents were sub-tenant on her 1/3 share. It was also claimed that there was partition qua to her share from other co-sharers.

(III) Third set of objection was filed by Nageshwar Dube, original Respondent-6 that land was wrongly mutated in names of respondents and that he was in possession of land and was recorded in 1351 Fasli.

3. The Consolidation Officer rejected all sets of objections filed by respondents and maintained basic year entry as correct, vide order dated 07.06.1964. It was held that land in dispute was fixed rent tenancy of respondents before Act, 1950. There was no partition of holdings, therefore, Mst. Ramdei, original Respondent-7, could not get any benefit of her disability, i.e., being a widow. It was further held that period of limitation for redemption of mortgage expired after 30 years and since no suit for redemption of mortgage was filed within time by mortgagor, thus right of mortgagor extinguished. Names of petitioners were rightly recorded as Bhumidhar, so far as share of original Respondent-2 was concerned.

4. Being aggrieved by above referred order, two appeals were filed which were rejected by a common order dated 16.01.1975 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Appellate Authority has held that limitation for redemption of mortgagee was expired, including the period as provided under section 30 of LIMITATION ACT , 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963"). It was further held that Mst. Ramdei, original Respondent-7 could not prove her case and since Khata was joint, therefore, any disability of her was ineffective and that petitioners could not be considered as Asami.

5. Above order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation led to filing of two revisions, one by original Respondent-2, Bateshwar and another by original Respondent-7, Mrs. Ramdei. Revisional Authority vide impugned order dated 16.12.1976 allowed both revisions and set aside impugned order therein, i.e., the orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Findings returned by Deputy Director of Consolidation are mentioned, in brief, hereinafter:

(I) Land in dispute was recorded as fixed rate tenancy in the name of Mata Sunder Dube in 1306 Fasli. In 1346 Fasli it was recorded in the name of Nageshwar and others. Sheo Nandan, predecessor of petitioners, was recorded mortgagee over the share of Bateshwar in 1355 Fasli and 1356 Fasli. There was a mortgage deed d