V.D.Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is judgment-debtor's appeal in a suit for redemption. There was one Daulat who had mortgaged four specific sir plots to one Shera on 27-2-1006. It was an usufructuary mortgage. After the execution of the mortgage Daulat executed a sale deed of his rights of redemption of these four plots to one Harnam on 14-4-1909. Hamam again sub-mortgtged these rights of redemption to one Nagina and others on 20-4-1910. Harnam's rights of redemption were put in auction and were purchased by the res-pondent Jyoti Prasad in a court auction. Nagina and others redeemed the mortgage and by partition among themselves Nagina got this property. The respondent thereafter filed suit No. 359 of 1950, for redemption of mortgage and obtained a decree against the appellant on 18-9-1951. Thereafter the decree for redemption was put in execution on 19-5-1952 for possession of the specific Plots. When this decree was put in execution there were objections filed by the appellant on the ground that by virtue of the coming into operation of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the respondent was not entitled to possession and had no right of execution of the decree.
(2.) The first court upheld the objections. The lower Court rejected the objections; therefore this second appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that by virtue of Section 4 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act since the mortgage was of the Zamindari property, the respondent had no right to redeem and that the decree had become infructuous and the only person that could execute the decree is the State. The second ground on which the decree of the lower appellate court is challenged is that by virtue of Section 16 the mortgagee being the occupant and that having been recorded in 1359 Fasli as the occupant he is not entitled to be dispossessed. Thirdly, reliance was placed on Section 3 of Act XXXI of 1952 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952, which is in the following words: "(1) Every person who was in cultivatory possession of any land during the year 1359 Fasli but is not a person who as a consequence of vesting under Section 4 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has become a bhumidar, sirdar, adhivasi or asami under sections 18 to 21 of the said Act shall be and is hereby declared to be, with effect from the appointed date: (a) if the bhumidhar or sirdar of the land was, or where the land belongs jointly to two Or more bhumidars or sirdars, all of them were, on the appointed date person or persons referred to in items (i) to (vi) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the said Act, an asami from year, to year, or (b) if the bhumidhar or sirdar was not such a person, an adhivasi, and shall be entitled to all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon an asami or an adhivasi, as the case may be; by or under the said Act." It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that under Section 14 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the appellant would not be deemed to be a legal representative of the mortgagor and could not be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 and, therefore, claim possession as a mortgagor.;