MEWA LAL Vs. RUKUMPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has come to us on a reference made by our brother S.N. Singh. The relevant facts giving rise to this second appeal are:

(2.) THE question which was canvassed before the courts below and which has been canvassed before us is whether Under Clause (g) of Section 6 of the Act, Rukum Pal Singh was entitled to get back possession of the groves in dispute from Mewa Lad, on the ground that the "self -liquidating usufructuary mortgage" in favour of Mewa Lal was converted into a simple mortgage. The courts below held that Mewa Lal was a mortgagee in possession and the mortgage held by him was substituted by a simple mortgage and for that reason Rukum Pal Singh is entitled to get back possession over the groves in dispute.

(3.) BEFORE I deal with this submission of the Learned Counsel, I would like to dispose of an objection made on behalf of the Respondents that the present appeal has abated Under Section 5 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act) because the village in which the groves in dispute lie has been notified for consolidation operations Under Section 4 of the Consolidation Act. This objection was taken by means of a written application, as also orally, during the course of arguments.