Raghubar Dayal, J - (1.)This second appeal arises out of a suit for accounting under Section 33, Agriculturists Relief Act. The debtor applicant claimed the benefit of the provisions of the Debt Redemption Act.
(2.)The defendant mortgagee contested the suit on two grounds. One was that the Debt Redemption Act did not apply as the land mortgaged was situated within the limits of the Notified Area of Basti. The other was that nothing of the principal had been paid up from usufruct.
(3.)Both Courts held that the Debt Redemption Act applied. The trial Court found Rs. 1989-4-0 still due to the mortgagee. The first appellate Court found RS. 2202- 8-3 were due. The difference in the calculation by the two Courts lay in the amount allowed for the costs of production. Both the Courts held the profits to be equivalent to five times the rental according to the rent fixed under Section 110, U.P. Tenancy Act.