Judgement Consolidated Appeals from two judgments and decrees of the High Court (November 9, 1909) affirming decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh. The sole question arising in the appeals was whether the appellant was entitled to redeem a usufructuary mortgage executed on February 5, 1863. The material facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships. The suit which was the subject of the first appeal was instituted by the appellant in 1906 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, claiming to redeem the above mortgage. The appellant had in 1901 purchased a share in the mortgaged property from the mortgagors, who had sought to redeem in 1878. He contended that the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpur made in 1881 allowing mesne profits thereunder was made without jurisdiction and that the subsequent purchase of the equity of redemption by the mortgagee in execution of that decree was consequently void. The suit which was the subject of the second appeal was instituted in the same Court by the heirs of the mortgagee, and was for possession of the property the subject of the mortgage of 1863, the defendants being purchasers at a sale in execution of a decree obtained by them against the mortgagee of 1863, upon a mortgage by him in 1886. The right of the appellant to redeem the mortgage of 1863 consequently arose in both suits. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the first suit. He held that the Subordinate Judge of Mainpur had jurisdiction to allow mesne profits and that the purchase of the equity of redemption by the mortgagee in 1881 was therefore valid. The High Court (Sir John Stanley C.J. and Banerji J.), by a judgment delivered in the first suit on November 9, 1909, dismissed the appeal. The learned judges held that the order for payment of mesne profits and for sale could not be treated as made without jurisdiction. They said "In our opinion a decree of reversal by an appellate Court contains by necessary implication a direction to the Court below to cause restitution to be made of all the benefits of which the successful party in the appeal was deprived by the enforcement of the erroneous decree of the Court of first instance." They referred to Hurro Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Shoorodhonee Debia (( 1868) 9 Suth. W. R. 402.) and other decisions, and distinguished Kalka Singh v. Parasram. (( 1894) L. R. 22 Ind. Ap. 68.) The judgment of the learned judges is reported at I. L. R. 32 Allah. 79. The appeal in the second suit was concluded by the above judgment. 1915. Nov. 11. Sir Erle Richards, K.C., and Kenworthy Brown, for the appellant. The power of the Subordinate Judge under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1877, s. 583, was limited to giving effect to the decree of the High Court. That decree did not, either expressly or by implication, give the mortgagee a right to mesne profits; the decree for mesne profits was therefore made without jurisdiction and is void Kalka Singh v. Parasram. (L. R. 22 Ind. Ap. 68.) The decisions referred to by the High Court are distinguishable, as the decree of the High Court did not reverse that of the Subordinate Judge, and the High Court had by their previous decree expressly provided what sum the mortgagee was entitled to upon redemption. The mortgagee was not entitled to mesne profits, as during the period in which he was out of possession he had had the use of the money paid under the original decree. [Khiarajmal v. Daim (( 1904) L. R. 32 Ind. Ap. 23.) was also referred to.] De Gruyther, K.C., and Dube, for the respondents, were not called upon. Dec. 14. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by MR. AMEER ALI. The facts on which the two suits that have given rise to the present appeals were brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh are fully set out in the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. It is sufficient, therefore, to state shortly the circumstances which form the basis of the appellant Parbhu Dyals claim. He was the plaintiff in one of the actions (24 of 1906) which was a suit for the redemption of a mortgage, whilst in the other (173 of 1906) he was joined as a defendant. Both suits, however, related to a village called Lodhamai. A half-share of this property, in the nomenclature in vogue in this part of the country described as a 10-biswas share, belonged originally to one Ram Bakhsh. Both suits, however, related to a village called Lodhamai. A half-share of this property, in the nomenclature in vogue in this part of the country described as a 10-biswas share, belonged originally to one Ram Bakhsh. In the year 1863 Ram Bakhsh executed a usufructuary mortgage in respect of this share for a term of eleven and a half years in favour of one Debi Das, since deceased. It may be noted here that just as 16 annas constitute the integral unit in Bengal and other places, 20 biswas form the unit in most parts of Upper India—20 biswansis going to a biswa. The mortgage deed in favour of Debi Das provided that the mortgagee should remain in undisturbed possession of the mortgaged property and take the rents and profits in lieu of interest. The principal money secured by the mortgage was never repaid and Debi Das continued to hold the share after the expiration of the term for repayment. In the meantime Ram Bakhsh was dealing with the equity of redemption; in 1866 he assigned his right in 7 biswas of his 10 biswas to the minor sons of a person named Zahur Ahmed; a little later he sold to Zahur Ahmed himself 2 biswas 19 biswansis, and subsequent thereto the remaining fraction left in his hands to the mortgagee, Debi Das. The outstanding equity of redemption in respect of 9 biswas 19 biswansis thus vested in Zahur Ahmed and his sons. Zahur Ahmed died shortly after, leaving as his heirs besides his sons several daughters and two widows. His estate, including the right to redeem the mortgage to Debi Das, accordingly devolved on his heirs. In 1877 his sons under the guardianship of their mother brought a suit for redemption against Debi Das, and in May, 1878, they obtained a decree for possession on payment to the mortgagee of a specified sum. This money appears to have been paid into Court, and the plaintiffs obtained possession of the property in July, 1878. The decree of the Court of first instance was, however, varied on appeal by the High Court, which directed payment by the plaintiffs of a further sum of Rs. 9000. This they failed to do, and the mortgagee was restored to possession by an order of the Court in April, 1880. The decree of the Court of first instance was, however, varied on appeal by the High Court, which directed payment by the plaintiffs of a further sum of Rs. 9000. This they failed to do, and the mortgagee was restored to possession by an order of the Court in April, 1880. Debi Das then applied to the Court for an order for mesne profits for the period during which he was out of possession, and in March, 1881, he succeeded in obtaining a decree for a sum of over Rs. 5000. In execution of this decretal order he caused the outstanding equity of redemption to be attached and sold, and at the auction sale purchased the same himself. After his purchase as aforesaid he purported to deal with the property as absolute owner ; he mortgaged the property to one Sagar Mal, who obtained a decree on his mortgage, and in execution of that decree the defendants in suit 173 of 1906 purchased the share in question in 1897. In suit 173 of 1906, which has given rise to appeal 75, the heirs of Debi Das are the plaintiffs, and they seek to redeem the property on the ground that, although Debi Das after his purchase in 1881 became the absolute owner, the defendants had in the auction sale held in 1897 only acquired his mortgagee right. The sons of Zahur Ahmed on the other hand continued to deal with their right to the equity of redemption as still subsisting in them, and by two deeds of sale assigned to Parbhu Dyal, the appellant, a 5-biswas share of the property. Parbhu Dyal, after failing in one suit in 1905 on the ground of non-joinder of parties, brought in 1906 the present action to redeem the mortgage executed by Ram Bakhsh in 18G3 and for ancillary relief. He contended in the Courts below, as has been contended before this Board on his behalf, that the decree for mesne profits and all the proceedings thereunder, culminating in the sale at which Debi Das purported to purchase the equity of redemption, were made without jurisdiction and conveyed no title to the purchaser ; and as they were mere nullities the right of his assignors was unaffected, and by virtue of the assignment to him he is entitled to redeem. Both Courts have overruled his contentions and dismissed his suit. Both Courts have overruled his contentions and dismissed his suit. Their Lordships fully concur in the reasons given by the High Court for disallowing the plaintiffs claim. As the learned judges point out, the Court which awarded the mesne profits had full jurisdiction in that behalf ; if it exercised the jurisdiction wrongly, the persons aggrieved had their remedy under the provisions of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, either by appeal to the High Court or by an application for revision. Objection was in fact taken under s. 311 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, to the sale for mesne profits, which was disallowed, and there was no appeal from that order. The present action, in their Lordships opinion, is wholly misconceived. It was further urged on the appellants behalf that he was at any rate entitled to redeem the share of Zahur Ahmeds daughters, who were no parties to the suit of their brothers or to the subsequent proceedings held therein. Their Lordships are not satisfied that any right was in fact conveyed to Parbhu Dyal by those ladies, nor, if any right was conveyed as alleged, what its extent was. The appeal should be dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellant, Parbhu Dyal, to the respondents who are represented at the hearing. It is admitted that this judgment will govern appeal 75, which arises out of suit 173 of 1906 brought by the heirs of Debi Das. That appeal should also be dismissed. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.