D.N.Roy, J. - (1.) Certain plots of land were mortgaged in 1921 with possession by Sheo Sarup Rai and Phuleshwar Rai in favour of Brijbasi Rai and Jogi Rai for a sum of Rs. 4499|14|6. The representatives of the mortgagors applied under Section 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (No. XXVII of 1934) for an order directing that the mortgage be redeemed and they be put in possession of the mortgaged property. They pleaded that the mortgage debt had been fully paid up and satisfied by the usufruct of the property. The representatives of the mortgagees objected to the redemption on the ground that the mortgagors were not agriculturists within the meaning of that term under the U. P-Agriculturists' Relief Act and that the usufruct of the property was not sufficient to discharge the mortgage debt. The trial court came to the conclusion that the applicants were agriculturists and were entitled to redemption under Section 12 of the Act. The trial court further came to the conclusion that upon proper accounting a sum of Rs. 1019|14|6 was still due. The trial court accordingly allowed redemption on payment of that sum within a specified time. An appeal was preferred against that decision to the District Judge under Section 23 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The District Judge was of the view that the applicants were not agriculturists within the meaning of that term under Section 2 (2) (b) of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and consequently the application was not maintainable. The District Judge further came to the conclusion that if the mortgagors had been agriculturists as defined in the Act, the correct amount that was due on the mortgage was in the sum of Rs. 2423|14|6. The District Judge accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the application. As against that decision this revision has been preferred in this Court.
(2.) It has been contended for the opposite-party that the order of the court below, right or wrong, is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance is placed on the case reported in Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria, 1953 A.L.J. 101 : A.I.R.S.C. 23 ,. It is urged that the court could decide a question rightly or wrongly and by deciding a question wrongly the court did not act illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction which the court below undoubtedly possessed over the subject matter of dispute. It is true that the court does not commit any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction on account of its deciding any question of fact or law wrongly; but it has been held by the Privy Council in Joy Chand Lal v. Kamalaksha Chaudhury, AIR 1949 P.C. 239 , that "If the erroneous decision results in the subordinate court exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, a case for revision arises under sub-Section (a) or Sub-Section (b) and sub-Section (c) can be ignored."
(3.) This principle of law has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in the case relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite-party and referred to above. The Privy Council in continuation of the quotation made in the above noted case, however, further observed: "The case of Babu Ram v. Munna Lal, AIR 1927 Allahabad 358 , and Hari Bhikaji v. Naro Vishvanath, I.L.R. 9 Bom. 432 , may be mentioned as cases in which a subordinate court by its own erroneous decision (erroneous that is in the view of the High Court), in the one case on a point of limitation and in the other on a question of res judicata, invested itself with a jurisdiction which in law it did not possess, and the High Court held wrongly, their Lordships think, that it had no power to interfere in revision to prevent such a result.";