JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The facts of this case are these:— Dhondha Rai and others made two mortgages of their zemindari rights by way of conditional sale to the defendants by two deeds, dated respectively the 23rd August, 1889, and the 16th December, 1876. On the 13th July, 1877, an application was made by the mortgagees under Regulation 17 of 1806 for foreclosure proceedings. Notice was issued as required by the Regulation and proceedings were drawn up on the 2nd of October, 1877, declaring the fact of the issue and service of notice. After the service of notice and expiry of the year of grace the same mortgagors made a usufructuary mortgage of the lands in suit, which were their sir lands in favour of the plaintiffs on the 20th of December, 1878. A petition of compromise was filed in the foreclosure proceedings by the mortgagors and the first mortgagees on the 12th of July, 1878, by which the latter agreed to give up a portion of the mortgaged property upon certain conditions. Those conditions not having been fulfilled, they brought a suit for foreclosure and obtained a decree on the 2nd of September, 1880. By this decree they became absolute owners of the village of Rajapur, in which the lands in suit are situate. After this foreclosure decree the mortgagors became by operation of law ex-proprietary tenants of the sir land in question. The defendants got rent assessed on these lands by the Revenue Court, and the rent so assessed having fallen into arrears, they sued the mortgagors and obtained a decree on the 18th of February, 1903. As the decree was not satisfied they took out ejectment proceedings and obtained formal possession. Thereupon the present suit was brought by the plaintiff for maintenance of their possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession. They did not deny the facts set forth above, but on the contrary practically admitted them in their plaint. They assert, however, that as they were not parties to the suit for foreclosure in which the decree of the 2nd of September, 1880, was passed, that decision is not binding on them and that consequently they are entitled to remain in possession under the usufructuary mortgage made in their favour. The Court of first instance dismissed their claim and the decree of that Court has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The Court of first instance dismissed their claim and the decree of that Court has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. It is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to enter into the reasons for the decisions of the Court below. It is clear upon the facts, as stated above, that the plaintiffs have ceased to have any right under their mortgage. After the issue of the notice of the foreclosure and the service of such notice under Regulation 17 of 1806 and after the expiry of the year of grace allowed by that Regulation, the right of the mortgagors or their representatives entitled to redeem the conditional sale became extinct. As this happened before the mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs was made, the fact that the present plaintiffs were not made parties to the suit brought by the defendants for foreclosure did not prejudicially affect them. It is not stated on their behalf that notice of foreclosure was not duly served as required by the Regulation or that there was any irregularity in the foreclosure proceedings by reason of which those proceedings are invalid or infructuous. Their omission from the array of parties in the foreclosure suit was therefore immaterial, as upon the expiry of the year of grace their right to redeem, if they had any, had become extinct. The effect of the foreclosure decree was to vest in the conditional vendees the proprietary rights to the sir lands mortgaged to the plaintiffs, and the only right which the plaintiffs acquired in respect of the sir lands was that of usufructuary mortgagees of the ex-proprietary holding. As such mortgagees, they were bound to protect the ex-proprietary holding, and if they did not do so and the ex-proprietary holding came to an end, their mortgage also terminated with the determination of the tenancy. In the present case the ex-proprietary tenancy was determined by ejectment of the mortgagors. It is not asserted that there was any collusion, between the defendants and the mortgagors in the ejectment proceedings; so that we must assume that those proceedings were taken legally and honestly in due course of law. As the effect of those proceedings was to determine the ex-proprietary rights of the mortgagors, the plaintiffs' rights also came to an end, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain this suit. As the effect of those proceedings was to determine the ex-proprietary rights of the mortgagors, the plaintiffs' rights also came to an end, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain this suit. For these reasons I dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.