JUDGMENT : KARAMAT HUSAIN, J. 1. Har Kishan and Bijai Singh, on the 31st of March, 1884, mortgaged the entire Mahal of Budh Sen, to Mr. Kinlock. Plot 611 was in that Mahal. The mortgagee purchased it from Randhir Singh on the 4th of April, 1888, managed it to be excluded from the holding of his vendor, got the rent of it struck off, and had it entered in the Revenue papers as his own grove. Mr. Kinlock, on the 19th of July, 1901, sold it to Gandharp Singh. On the 25th of January, 1906, plaintiff No. 1 purchased one-half of the mortgaged Mahal and redeemed the entire Mahal from Mr. Kinlock. The plaintiffs entered into the proprietary possession of the entire Mahal on the 10th of June, 1906. 2. On the 28th of April, 1908, the plaintiffs sued in the court of the Munsif of Etawah for possession of the plot. 3. Gandharp Singh defended the suit on the grounds that Randhir Singh was the full owner of the plot; that the defendant and his predecessor in title had been in adverse possession for more than 12 years, and that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court. 4. The court of first instance finding that Randhir Singh was the occupancy tenant of plot No. 611, that the Civil Court had jurisdiction and that the suit was not barred by limitation, decreed the claim. The lower appellate court affirmed the decree, finding that Randhir Singh was the occupancy holder of the plot. 5. Gandharp Singh appeals to this Court, and the following pleas are put forward by his learned counsel:— 1. The Zemindar cannot claim possession so long as the sale by Randhir Singh has not been set aside. 2. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction. 3. The suit is barred by limitation. 6. It has been found that Randhir Singh, when he sold the plot to Mr. Kinlock, was the occupancy tenant of the plot. The law governing such sales at that time was the North-Western Provinces Rent Act, 1881. That Act and not the Agra Tenancy Act, 1901, governs the case. The sale under section 9 of the North-Western Provinces Rent Act, 1881, was illegal, and the vendee's possession was that of a trespasser. Kinlock, was the occupancy tenant of the plot. The law governing such sales at that time was the North-Western Provinces Rent Act, 1881. That Act and not the Agra Tenancy Act, 1901, governs the case. The sale under section 9 of the North-Western Provinces Rent Act, 1881, was illegal, and the vendee's possession was that of a trespasser. This was held in Jokhu Ram v. Har Shankar Prasad Singh, [1886] 6 A.W.N., 75 and Madhu Lal v. Sheo Prasad, [1890] 10 A.W.N., 162. Those rulings are binding on me. Such being the nature of the possession of the predecessor in title of Gandharp Singh, the zemindar was undoubtedly entitled to sue for ejectment in the Civil Court. It is; however, urged that if the possession of Mr. Kinlock was that of a trespasser, twelve years’ limitation barred the suit. This is futile. Mr. Kinlock was in possession of the Mahal in which the plot in question was situated as a mortgagee and his derivative possession during the continuance of the mortgage was that of his mortgagors. Mr. Kinlock, therefore, by no act of his; behind the back of his mortgagors could turn his derivative possession into an adverse possession against the mortgagors or their representatives. It is on this principle that (1) Lord St. Leonard in “his Handbook on Property Law” said :—“It has always been laid down that neither the mortgagor nor the mortgagee can by any adverse act have the right of the other”; 7th ed., p. 117; that (2) the defendant in Jeeckoo Sahoo v. Syied Musee-ullah, [1873] 12 W.R. 13 was not allowed by his wrongful conduct to disentitle the plaintiff from having the benefit of the period of limitation; and that (3) in the Full Bench case of Umr-un-Nissa v. Muhammad Yar Khan, [1880] I.L.R., 3 All., 24, the possession of the mortgagee and his representative up to the date of redemption was held to be not adverse to the mortgagor and his representative. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that as Randhir Singh has been found to be the occupancy tenant of the plot No. 611 and as Gandharp Singh is a vendee from Randhir's vendee, the Zemindar is not entitled to immediate possession, inasmuch as he has not ejected the occupancy holder Randhir through a Revenue Court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that as Randhir Singh has been found to be the occupancy tenant of the plot No. 611 and as Gandharp Singh is a vendee from Randhir's vendee, the Zemindar is not entitled to immediate possession, inasmuch as he has not ejected the occupancy holder Randhir through a Revenue Court. In support of his contention he relies on the following remarks in Gulzar Singh v. Kalyan Chand, [1893] I.L.R., 15 All., 399: “A person who sues for possession of any immoveable property, i.e., who sues to have another person in possession ejected, must, in order to entitle him to a decree show that he had himself a right to the immediate possession at the date when he instituted his suit, assuming of course that his title to possession is denied.” P. 401. “The position then stands thus:—At the time when this suit was instituted, Baldeo Singh, who had not been ejected under Act No. XII of 1881 and who had not transferred the right of occupancy to any person in whose favour such transfer would be effective under section 9 of Act No. XII of 1881 and who had not relinquished his occupancy right in favour of his landlord, was alive and that right of occupancy was then a subsisting right vested in Baldeo Singh. Baldeo Singh, and not the zemindar was the person, who against Gulzar Singh was entitled to possession. The right not being transferable whilst that right subsisted in Baldeo Singh his landlord, the Zemindar, could not prove a right in himself to the immediate possession of the occupancy holding.” P. 402. 8. The two rulings of this Court which lay down that a vendee from an occupancy-holder is a trespasser and which are binding on me, furnish a complete answer to the point taken by the learned counsel. During the course of the arguments reference was made to 29 All. 52 and 327 : 27 All. 395 : 30 All 119 : 2 A.L.J.R., 119 and 3 A.L.J.R., 226, but in the view I take it is unnecessary to discuss the above cases. The suit being against a trespasser, the Civil Court is the right forum, and being brought within 12 years from the date of redemption is not barred by limitation. 395 : 30 All 119 : 2 A.L.J.R., 119 and 3 A.L.J.R., 226, but in the view I take it is unnecessary to discuss the above cases. The suit being against a trespasser, the Civil Court is the right forum, and being brought within 12 years from the date of redemption is not barred by limitation. The result is that there is no force in the pleas taken and the appeal is dismissed with costs.