JUDGMENT

Ghulam Hasan, J - These are two applications under Section 115, Civil P.C., directed against the judgment arid decree dated 1st April 1988, passed by the District Judge of Fyzabad setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31st March 1987, passed by the Assistant Collector of Tanda. The facts are as follows: On 13th December 1911, Bansgopal, the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties, executed a mortgage in favour of Sheo Narain and Barkhoo tailor for Rs. 599 mortgaging two properties in villages Mundera and Aribpur. In the mortgage deed the mortgage money was split up into two parts, namely Rs. 800 were entered as having been paid by Sheo Narain and Rs. 299 paid by Barkhoo tailor. Bansgopal on 6th February 1919, executed a deed of further charge for Rs. 100 in favour of Sheo Narain only. Bansgopal also executed a mortgage in favour of Sheo Narain for Rs. 400 on 29th May 1919, in respect of some other property Bansgopal died and upon his death his sons, the opposite parties, filed an application for redemption of the mortgage under Section 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, stating that the amount due to Barkhoo mortgagee, namely Rs. 299 had been paid off while the amount due to Sheo Narain still remained unpaid. This application was No. 6 of 1986 and was filed in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Tanda. The opposite parties also applied for redemption in respect of the mortgage of 1919 in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Tanda. This was application No. 5 of of 1936.

2. A preliminary objection was raised to the effect that the applications were not maintainable in the Court of the Assistant Collector as the principal money secured by the mortgages in each case exceeded Rs. 500. In respect of the mortgage of 1911, it was alleged that the principal sum secured by the mortgage was Rs. 599 and not Rs. 300 as alleged in the application. As regards the mortgage made in 1919, it was alleged that although the principal sum secured was only Rs. 400 yet on account of a condition in the said mortgage deed it could not be redeemed unless the earlier mortgage of 1911 had been redeemed. The principal money secured thus exceeded Rs. 500. This objection was based on the provision of Section 10, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, which lays down that applications under Section 12 for redemption of the property shall if the principal money does not exceed Rs. 500 be brought before the Col. lector. The learned Assistant Collector upheld the preliminary objection and ordered the return of the applications for presentation to the proper Court.

3. The learned District Judge in appeal set aside the decision of the Assistant Collector j and held as regards the application in respect of the mortgage of 29th May 1919, that the consideration being Rs. 400 it was clearly entertainable by the Revenue Court. As regards the application arising out of the mortgage of 1911; the learned Judge took the view that the mortgage; represented two transactions, one in favour of Barkhoo tailor and the other in favour of Sheo Narain, and that the mortgage of Barkhoo tailor having admittedly been redeemed, the successors-in-interest of the mortgagor were entitled to apply for redemption in respect of the portion unredeemed, namely the portion of Sheo Narain for Rs. 800. He also took into consideration the deed of' farther charge for Rs. 100 and observed that the consideration of the mortgage as well as the deed of further charge did not exceed Rs. 400 and the application was, therefore, rightly filed in the Revenue Court. In the result he allowed the appeals and directed that both the applications should be disposed of by the Revenue Court according to law.' The defendants to the applications, who are the successors-in-interest of Sheo Narain, have preferred two revision petitions to this Court. Civil Revision No. 75 of 1988 arises out of application No. 6 of 1936 while the civil Revision No. 76 of 1938 arises out of application No. 5 of 1936.