Mootham, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by leave from a judgment and decree of a learned Judge dated the 3 -2 -59. The facts which are not in dispute can be stated shortly. The Appellant filed a suit Under Clause (c) of Section 202 of the UP ZA and LR Act for the ejectment of the Respondents from certain agricultural plots mentioned in Lists A and B in the plaint. The plots in List A had been mortgaged with possession to the Respondents by the predecessor -in title of the Appellant by a deed dated 13 -7 -1908 and the plots in List B had been similarly mortgaged by a deed dated 7 -9 -1909. It was stipulated in the first of these deeds that redemption will take place after the expiry of 51 years and in the second after 59 years. After the coming into force of the UPZA LR Act the Appellant became a bhumidhar and the Defendant became asamis. Section 202 so far as it is material provides that Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 388, an asami shall be liable to ejectment from his holding on the suit of...the landholder...on the ground.... (c) that the mortgage has been satisfied or the amount due has been deposited in court.
(2.) THE words "or the amount due has been deposited in court" were added to Clause (c) by UP Act XVI of 1953, The suit was filed in 1956, that is before the expiration of either of the periods provided in the mortgage deeds for redemption. At the time of filing the sun the Appellant deposited in court the amount which would, have been payable to the Respondent had the mortgages been redeemable on that date. The suit was contested on various grounds, but the only defence with which we are concerned is that it was premature as the period of redemption had not expired. In the trial court the Plaintiff obtained a decree for possession and that decree was upheld by the lower appellate court. On second appeal however the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court was reversed and the Appellants' suit was dismissed.
(3.) THE learned Judge was of the opinion that the expression 'amount due' in Clause (c) of Section 202 of the Act meant the amount payable for the redemption of the mortgage and that as in the appeal before him the Appellant's right to redeem had not accrued there was no amount due and accordingly the deposit made by the Appellant did not satisfy the provisions of the section.;