JUDGMENT Kanhaiya Lal, J. - The question for consideration in this appeal is whether in the case of a joint occupancy holding belonging to four brothers and mortgaged by some of them with possession in favour of another person, one of the brothers, who was not a party to the mortgage, can get back possession of the entire holding without paying the mortgage money on the ground that such a mortgage was invalid. The court of first instance gave a decree for joint possession with the mortgagees; but the lower appellate court decreed the entire suit. In Baharan Upadhya v. Uttamgir (1911) 33 All. 779 it was held that a mortgagor of an occupancy holding who had put the mortgagee in possession could not recover back possession upon the ground merely that the mortgage was void under the provisions of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act (11 of 1901), without repaying to the mortgagee the money which he had received from him. In Ramzan v. Bhukhal Rai (1918) 16 A.L.J. 747 it was similarly held that though a usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy holding was void u/s 20 of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act, the mortgagor could get back possession on his paying the mortgage money. 2. A mortgagor is estopped from denying the validity of the mortgage after having received the consideration thereof from the mortgagee. Similarly a joint occupancy tenant who wants to repudiate a mortgage made by his co-tenant can get back possession of his share, but cannot repudiate the mortgage made by his co-sharers without paying the mortgage money realised by the latter by virtue of the mortgage from the mortgagee. To allow him to do so would in effect amount indirectly to allowing his co-sharer to resile from the mortgage and getting back possession without repaying the money taken by him from the mortgagee under the cloak of the plaintiffs' joint right. The appeal is therefore allowed with costs here and in the lower appellate court and the decree of the lower appellate court amended in so far that the plaintiff will not be able to get possession of the three-fourth share of the mortgagors without the payment by him or the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 of the mortgage money due to the defendant Nos. 5 to 6. In other respects the decree of the lower appellate court will stand confirmed.