JUDGMENT Karamat Husain, J. - In this case, an occupancy tenant mortgaged his holding with possession to one Chhote Lal, and afterwards relinquished his holding in favour of the zamindar, who instituted a suit in ejectment in the Revenue Court against the plaintiff. The occupancy tenant was not a party to the suit. Chhote Lal in that suit raised a plea that the relinquishment, by the mortgagor in favour of the zamindar was a collusive transaction and could not affect his rights. While that suit was pending, Chhote Lal instituted a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge for a declaration that the relinquishment, dated the 25th September, 1909, was collusive and fraudulent and made for the purpose of causing lose to him and was void as against him. The learned Subordinate Judge coming to the conclusion that the suit was barred by res judicata dismissed the claim and that decree was upheld by the lower appellate court on the ground that the relief sought was a relief in the discretion of the court to grant or refuse, The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. Following the ruling in Rannu Rai v. Rafi-ud-din (1905) I.L.R., 27 All., 82 which I followed in Ramdhari Rai Vs. Ramdhari Rai and Others, 2 Ind. Cas. 456 I hold that the occupancy tenant, after mortgaging his holding with possession to Chhote Lal, had no power to relinquish it in favour of the zamindar. I would, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the courts below, and under the provisions of order 41, rule 23, send the case back through the lower appellate court to the court of first instance for trial on the merits. Costs will abide the event. Knox, J. 2. The facts are set out in the judgment of my learned brother, and in view of the course of rulings to which he has referred, I prefer not to adhere to the opinion which I have entertained and would have put forward at greater length had the matter been res integra. Costs will abide the event. Knox, J. 2. The facts are set out in the judgment of my learned brother, and in view of the course of rulings to which he has referred, I prefer not to adhere to the opinion which I have entertained and would have put forward at greater length had the matter been res integra. I was one of the Judges who in Khiali Ram v. Nathu (1893) I.L.R., 15 All., 219 was prepared to hold and did hold that an ex-proprietary tenant could sublet the whole or any part of his holding, but I have always hesitated, with due respect to the learned Judges who decided the cases, in following the further step taken in Badri Prasad v. Sheodhan (1896) I.L.R., 13 All., 354 and Rannu Rai v. Rafi-ud-din (1905) I.L.R., 27 All., 82. The question arises--what will the decree-holder do with the decree when he gets it, and whether the Revenue Courts will pay any attention to it? These conflicts between Revenue and Civil Courts are to be regretted. It would be well if they could be put an end to by the Legislature. In view, however, of the series of rulings abovementioned, I accept the view taken by my learned brother, and agree in his order, which will also be the order of the Court.