JUDGMENT : Banerji, J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants for the possession of certain trees existing on land which once formed the ex-proprietary holding of the first three defendants'. It appears that those defendants had taken takavi advances from Government and as security for such advances, hypothecated the trees in question. The amount not having been repaid, the Government, in pursuance of the provisions of section 5 of Act No. XII of 1884, realized the amount of the advances, as if it-were land revenue, by sale of the trees. The fourth defendant became the purchaser at such sale. After the hypothecation of the trees, and; before the sale, the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had relinquished their ex-proprietary holding to the plaintiffs who are the zamindars. As the defendant No. 4 had taken possession of the trees under his auction purchase, the plaintiffs brought this suit, claiming the trees on the ground that the mortgage had ceased to have any effect after the relinquishment of the holding, and that the defendants had acquired nothing at the auction sale. 2. One of the grounds on which the court below decided the case is, that such a suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court having regard to section 241 of the Land Revenue Act of 1873. Holding the view that we do in this case it is not necessary for us to decide the question of jurisdiction. It is clear that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 could not, by relinquishing their ex-proprietary holding, defeat the interests of Government under the hypothecation made in its favour for the takavi advance given to those defendants. This was held in the case of Sham Das v. Batul Bibi, [1902] I.L.R., 24 All., 538. The fourth defendant, as purchaser at the auction sale, which was held for the realization of the takavi loan, has stepped into the shoes, both of the mortgagee and the mortgagor, and consequently has acquired the ownership of the trees which were mortgaged to the Government. The plaintiffs were not therefore entitled to recover possession of the trees from the fourth defendant, and the Court below has rightly dismissed the suit. We dismiss the appeal with costs.