JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J.:— The plaintiff mortgaged with possession to the respondents, Chattar Singh and Hakim Singh, his zemindari with the sir lands. In 1902, he brought a suit against the mortgagees for redemption, and on 25th July, 1902, he got a decree and redeemed the property. Under the provision of section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagees were bound to re-transfer the property to the plaintiff free not only from the mortgage but also from all in cumbrances created by them. In the redemption suit the court of first instance ordered by its decree that the mortgagees were to take steps in the revenue court to eject the tenants, whom they had let into possession, that, if they failed to do so, the mortgagor would be at liberty to eject them, recovering the costs of the proceedings from the mortgagees. On appeal this part of the decree was set aside, the Judge of the appellate court remarking, “if the pattah, i.e., lease, is valid after the redemption, it remains valid; if it ceases with redemption, the insertion of the condition is unnecessary. The parties should be left to their remedy in the manner authorised by law and the court cannot give them any advice about it”. The mortgagor then applied to the revenue court to have the plots recorded in his name as sir. The lower appellate court says that in this application “unfortunately though rightly” (apparently the learned Subordinate Judge meant to say wrongly) he failed. The plaintiff then brought the suit out of which this appeal arises asking for the ejectment of tenants, whom the mortgagees had let into possession. He also prayed for a declaration that the land was his sir. The suit was brought in the Munsif's court. The latter prayer was one which a civil court could not grant. The Munsif, however, decreed the plaintiff's claim. On appeal by the tenants the learned Subordinate Judge has thrown out the suit on the ground that the plaintiff should seek his remedy in the revenue court. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. In my opinion, that portion of the plaintiff's claim by which he asked for the ejectment of the tenants, whom his mortgagees had let into possession, was cognizable by the civil court. There was no relation of land-holder and tenant between the plaintiff and the mortgagee's lessees. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. In my opinion, that portion of the plaintiff's claim by which he asked for the ejectment of the tenants, whom his mortgagees had let into possession, was cognizable by the civil court. There was no relation of land-holder and tenant between the plaintiff and the mortgagee's lessees. The lessees right to hold possession of the land came to an end with the mortgage. The mortgage having been redeemed, the lessors' rights were determined and the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land in suit. It is, of course, conceivable that during the term of the mortgage a right of occupancy might have been acquired by lapse of time, in which case the tenants would have been entitled to retain possession of the land; but that has not happened in the present case as it is found that up to 1893 the land in dispute was recorded as plaintiff's sir and this suit was instituted in November, 1903. I am of opinion for the reasons given above that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree against the respondents, Raj Hans and Deo Hans, for possession of the four fields claimed. I set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and modify the decree of the court of first instance by striking out so much of it, as declared the land to be the plaintiff's sir. I pass a decree in plaintiff's favour for possession of the fields claimed by him. As the plaintiff has substantially succeeded, he will have his costs here and the court below.