JUDGMENT Walford, J. - The point for determination in this revision is whether a donee of a property encumbered by a mortgage is entitled to the benefits of the Debt Redemption Act. 2. The facts briefly are that one Hamida Bibi executed a mortgage deed on the 1st of June 1880 for a sum of Rs. 1,100. She later made a gift of this property to the applicant. The applicant Yawar, Husain applied u/s 12, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for redemption of the mortgage deed and he further claimed to be entitled to the benefit of Section 9, Dabt Redemption Act (Act XIII of 1940). 3. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the applicant was not an agriculturist. In appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Fyzabad, held that he was an agriculturist but was not entitled to the benefit of Section 9 of the Debt Redemption Act by virtue of the fact that the debt did not corns within the definition of lean u/s 2, Sub-clause (9) of the Debt Redemption Act inasmuch as the. applicant was the transferee of the property and by an implied contract between the donee and the donor the former had made himself liable to pay off the encumbrance. In the end he held that as an agriculturist the applicant was entitled to redeem the mortgaged property cm payment Rs. 1,100, being the principal. 4. In revision the Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the Court below has misconceived the law and has therefore acted with material irregularity in the matter. He has relied upon two authorities in support of his contention. The first of these is a Beach decision consisting of Allsop and Hamilton, JJ., in Kr. Aittar Singh Vs. Mahabir Pal Singh and Others, AIR 1944 All 213 . The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court held that: in the term 'contract' cannot be included any transfer which does not involve the payment of consideration. A gift cannot, therefore, be included among the transactions which operate to transcribe liability for the repayment of an advance within the term; of the definition of loan in Section 2(9). the judgment-debtor is thus entitled to claim the advantage of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, although he has gifted his property. 5. A gift cannot, therefore, be included among the transactions which operate to transcribe liability for the repayment of an advance within the term; of the definition of loan in Section 2(9). the judgment-debtor is thus entitled to claim the advantage of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, although he has gifted his property. 5. Following this decision a Bench of this Court consisting of Misra and Kaul, JJ, in Thakur Laiji Singh v. Lakshmi Narain 1915 O.A. : A.W.R. (C.C.) 232 : O.W.N. 357 have held that: Under Section 2(9) U.P. Debt Redemption Act, the transfer of liability for repayment of a debt from the borrower to another person shall have the effect of taking the case out of the definition of the word 'loan' only if such transfer is the result of a contract. A contract is essentially different from a gift, and the donee of a property subject to an encumbrance, provided he fulfils other conditions, is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act, there being no contract, express or implied, to repay the debt. 6. In view of the two authorities cited above the question is no longer in doubt as to the right of a donee of an encumbered property, if he is proved to be an agriculturist to apply for redemption of such property and claim the benefit of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act. 7. The Learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that this question can no longer be agitated in revision as it does not involve a question of jurisdiction or of acting with material irregularity in the exercise or jurisdiction. I cannot agree with this contention. Clearly the applicant had the right to claim the benefit of the Act and the Court below, having misconceived the law, has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it in granting the relief to which the applicant was entitled. 8. I therefore allow the revision and send back the case for determination of the amount, if any, payable by the debtor to the mortgagee. I make no order as to costs. I will depend upon the amount ultimately found to be due by the applicant.