The conversion of a mortgage with possession into a simple mortgage under Section 6 of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952, results in the personal liability of the mortgagor for the debt.

( 1 ) THIS judgment governs the disposal of two other First Appeals (Nos. 242 and 251, both of 1956) also. These three appeals have been filed by the defendants against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rewa, decreeing the claim of the respondent for recovery of amounts due on mortgage deeds executed by the appellants.

( 2 ) THE facts in all these cases are no longer in dispute. The appellants had executed the mortgage deeds for consideration in the years 1944 or 1945 in favour of the respondent. The mortgages were with possession and the property consisted of jagir villages in Vindhya Pradesh. On 1-7-1953 the jagirs were resumed under the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (No. XI of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the 'abolition Act') and the villages vested in the ?state Government. The respondent's case was that on the vesting, the mortgagors became liable personally for payment of the mortgage debt and accordingly he claimed the amount from them. The appellants in all these cases pleaded that under the provisions of the Abolition Act, the liability to pay the debt passed to the State Government and in no case were the mortgagors personally liable to pay the amount.

( 3 ) THE trial Court found that the mortgagors, were personally liable to pay the debt and decreed the claims.

( 4 ) SHRI G. P. Singh for the appellants has advanced only two contentions in his arguments before us. He conceded that if these contentions are not accepted, the decree of the trial Court in each case is correct. The two contentions are: (i) That the provisions in Section 6 of the Abolition Act are repugnant to the provisions relating to mortgages in the Transfer of Property Act which was extended to Vindhya Pradesh by the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950 (No. XXX of 1950) and, therefore, they are void; and, (ii) That under Section 6 of the Abolition Act, the mortgage in suit which was a mortgage with possession is converted into a simple mortgage and thus, the land in the hands of the State Government is liable to be sold for recovery of the debt, and until the security is exhausted, there is no personal liability on the mortgagors to repay the loan.

( 5 ) BEFORE considering the merits of the contentions raised by Shri Singh, we may state that the validity of the Abolition Act was considered by the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh in Mordhwaj Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 Vindh Pra 24. He held that the Abolition Act was valid, except for certain sections thereof. The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court and in State of Vindhya Pradesh v. Moradhwaj Singh, AIR 1960 SG 796, their Lordships held that the whole of the Abolition Act, including those sections which were held unconstitutional by the learned Judicial Commissioner, was valid. However, in that case, the question of Section 6 of the Abolition Act being repugnant to the -provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and void for that reason was not considered and it is, therefore, necessary for us to decide the point. ( 6 ) POINT No. (i): The legislative power of the Legislature of Part C States was not derived directly from the Constitution. Article 240 of the Constitution gives power to the Parliament to provide for the administration of Part C States and to create a body to function as a Legislature for the State. Acting on this power, the Parliament enacted the Government of Part C States Act, 1951 (No. XLIX of 1951 ). Under Section 21 of this Act, power was given to the Legislative Assembly of a Part C State to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or in the Concurrent List. The power which the Parliament had to enact laws for the State under Article 246 (4) was kept undisturbed. This power of the Parliament could be exercised, with respect to any item contained in any of the three Lists. Section 22 of the Act (No. XLIX of 1951) provides as follows : "section 22 : Inconsisten