Bhagwan Das Gupta, J. - (1.) This is a Defendants second appeal arising out of a suit, Under Sec. 209 read with Sec. 14 of the UP ZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for possession of a cultivatory plot of land. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal by the Plaintiff the suit was decreed whereupon the Defendants filed this second appeal which was referred by one of us for decision of a Division Bench. This is how this appeal is before us. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Appellants we are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below does not call for interference and this appeal must, therefore, fail.
(2.) There is no controversy now that the plot in suit had been usufructuary mortgaged, on 16 -9 -1916, by one Tahal Singh. The mortgagee was one Khadag, Tamoli. The finding of the court below, which has not been challenged before us, is that the Plaintiff -Respondent is the sole heir of the mortgagor Tahal Singh.
(3.) Plaintiff's case was that the Defendant Appellants were the heirs of the mortgagee Khadag Tamoli. It was also pleaded, in the alternative, that if the assertion that the Defendants were the heirs of Khadag Tamoli was not established, the Defendants were, in any case, in possession as mortgagees by virtue of the fact that they were the heirs of their father Saral who was transferee of the mortgagee rights from Khadag Tamoli.;