Kania, J.- This is an appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and raises the question of the validity of section 26-G of the Bengal Tenancy Act, as amended by the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1940. The material facts are these. On the 12th February, 1927, the father of the respondent mortgaged the disputed properties in favour of the father of the appellants. It was contended to be an anomalous mortgage. The lands were agricultural lands and it is common ground that the Bengal Tenancy Act applied to the transaction between the parties. The material facts are these. On the 12th February, 1927, the father of the respondent mortgaged the disputed properties in favour of the father of the appellants. It was contended to be an anomalous mortgage. The lands were agricultural lands and it is common ground that the Bengal Tenancy Act applied to the transaction between the parties. The material portions of section 26-G (before its amendment) ran as follows: "(1a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law or in any contract every usufructuary mortgage subsisting in or after the first date of August 1937, which was so entered into before the commencement of the Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1928, shall be deemed to have taken effect as a complete usufructuary mortgage for a period mentioned in the instrument or for 15 years whichever is less." "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law or in any contract the consideration (with all interest thereon) for a complete usufructuary mortgage or for another form of usufructuary mortgage deemed under sub-section (1a) to have taken effect as a complete usufructuary mortgage, entered into by an occupancy-raiyat in respect of his holding or a portion or share thereof shall be deemed to have been extinguished on the expiry of the period (a) mentioned in the instrument of the mortgage, or (b) of fifteen years, whichever is less, from the date of the registration of the instrument, or where there is no registered instrument, from the date of the mortgagee’s entry into possession, and the mortgagor shall thereupon become entitled to possession of the mort-gaged folding, and he may, if he is not forthwith given possession, apply to the Court or to a Revenue Officer to be restored thereto.“ A complete usufructuary mortgage is defined in section 3(3) as follows: Complete usufructuary mortgage ‘means a transfer by a tenant of the right of possession in any land for the purpose of securing the payment of money or the return of grain advanced or to be advanced by way of loan upon the condition that the loan, with all interest thereon, shall be deemed to be extinguished by the profits arising from the land during the period of the mortgage.” By the Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1940, for sub-section (1a), the following sub-section was substituted: “(1a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, every mortgage (including a mortgage by conditional sale) entered into by an occupancy-raiyat in respect of his holding or of a portion or share thereof in which possession of land is delivered to the mortgagee- (a) which was so entered into before the commencement of the Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 192b, and was subsisting on or after the first day of August, 1937, or (b) which, being other than a usufructuary mortgage having under sub-section (1) no force or effect, was so entered into after the commencement of the Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1928, and before the commencement of the Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1940, and was subsisting on or after the commencement of the Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1940, shall be deemed to have taken effect as a complete usufructuary mortgage for the period mentioned in the instrument or for fifteen years, whichever is less.” In the case before us, after the amendment was made in April 1940, the respondent applied to the Debt Settlement Board for settlement of his debts. While the matter was pending before the Board, on the 28th March, 1942, the respondent filed an application under the amended section 26-G for restoration of the mortgaged premises to him. That application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that money was due to him and the debt cannot be extinguished. It was contended that section 26-G, in so far as it affected the rights of the parties under an anomalous mortgage, was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature. The appellant failed in the two lower Courts. The High Court, however, granted a certificate under section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the appellant has therefore come in appeal before us. On his behalf it was contended that the Provincial Legislature had no power to extinguish the debt and while the debt remained unpaid, he could not be ordered to hand over possession of the mortgaged premises. In our opinion, the wording of Entry No. 21 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution Act affords a complete answer to the appellant’s contention. Entry No. 21 runs as follows: “Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents, transfer, alienation and devolution of agricultural land, land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization; Court of Wards; encumbered and attached estates; treasure trove.” The creation of an usufructuary mortgage and the rights of the parties thereunder are clearly covered by the words of that Entry. In the same way, the rights of a landlord and tenant under an anomalous mortgage in respect of agricultural lands are equally capable of being defined and, if so, altered by a Provincial Legislature. Therefore when a Provincial Legislature passes an Act providing that a mortgagee, who is in possession for 15 years and more, shall be considered and treated as if the mortgage debt and interest were paid off, it does not go beyond the legislative powers of the Province. The same provision can be made in respect of an usufructuary mortgage or other mortgage. The amendment, in our opinion, is thus clearly within the terms of Entry No. 21 of List II. We are not concerned in the present case with the question of extinguishment of the debt. That question is still pending before the Debt Settlement Board. The same provision can be made in respect of an usufructuary mortgage or other mortgage. The amendment, in our opinion, is thus clearly within the terms of Entry No. 21 of List II. We are not concerned in the present case with the question of extinguishment of the debt. That question is still pending before the Debt Settlement Board. We are concerned only with the order made by the lower Courts to deliver over possession of the lands to the mortgagor. It was contended that this amendment is in conflict with the Transfer of Property Act, because a mortgage is created under the Transfer of Property Act. In our opinion, this argument cannot be accepted, because Entry No. 21 of List II covers the transfer of agricultural land. That will cover the transfer of an interest in such land also. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed