Redemption of occupancy land remains available to later-acquired tenants, with civil court jurisdiction and no limitation bar.

A person who later acquires a sufficient interest in mortgaged occupancy land may invoke the right of redemption and seek recovery of possession, even where the original mortgage of the occupancy holding was treated as void and the mortgagee had remained in long possession. The settled position also treats such an action as analogous to a redemption suit, making it maintainable in civil court rather than exclusively before the revenue court. The limitation objection based on adverse possession was not accepted, and the long-established local tenancy law was followed on the principle of stare decisis.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiffs, having acquired occupancy and bhumidari rights after the original mortgagor's surrender, were entitled to redeem the mortgage and recover possession from the mortgagees' legal representatives; (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation or was maintainable only before the revenue court.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs, having acquired occupancy and bhumidari rights after the original mortgagor's surrender, were entitled to redeem the mortgage and recover possession from the mortgagees' legal representatives.

Analysis: The mortgage of an occupancy holding was treated as void, but the mortgagee's long possession did not extinguish the mortgagor's right to redeem and only matured into mortgagee rights. The plaintiffs had, by compromise decree and subsequent declaration as bhumidars, become the occupancy tenants of the very land earlier held by the original mortgagor. Their later-acquired interest in the property was sufficient to invoke the right of redemption under the Transfer of Property Act. The established Full Bench view on the nature of such transactions was applied, and the settled law was not disturbed.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the mortgage and recover possession.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation or was maintainable only before the revenue court.

Analysis: The contention that the defendants had become trespassers requiring a revenue suit under the U.P. Tenancy Act was rejected in light of the settled Full Bench position that the action was analogous to a redemption suit and was maintainable in civil court. The long line of authority governing local tenancy law was followed on the principle of stare decisis, and the limitation objection based on adverse possession was not accepted.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation and was maintainable in the civil court.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiffs was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A person acquiring a sufficient interest in mortgaged occupancy land may sue for redemption, and a mortgagee in possession of such land does not extinguish the right of redemption by lapse of time; settled local law on the point should ordinarily be followed.

---