JUDGMENT R.P. Mookerjee, J. - This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff with two alternative prayers. The plaintiff prayed for declaration of his title and for khas possession of a tank and banks or in the alternative for redemption. 2. The facts giving rise to the litigation may be shortly stated. Atul Hazari was the original owner of the plot. He had executed two mortgages in succession of the property the first one for Rs. 200 in favour of the defendant's father and the second for Rs. 175 in favour of one Aghore Hazra. Neither the mortgage bonds nor the terms thereof are available. Subsequently in execution of a decree for rent due the plaintiff purchased on 24th November 1928, the tank along with the banks. It is admitted that the sale effected was a money sale. After this sale had been confirmed, delivery of possession was taken by the plaintiff on 30th June 1929. Subsequent to the confirmation of the sale in favour of the plaintiff, as on 10th January 1929, the defendant filed a suit, namely, Title Suit No. 111 of 1929 on the first mortgage which had been executed by Atul Hazari. The plaintiff, however, was not impleaded and in his absence the defendant obtained a preliminary and then a final decree in the mortgage suit. On 8th November 1929, the defendant decree-holder purchased the property in Execution Case No. 692 of 1929 and after confirmation delivery of possession was obtained 19th December 1929. 3. After the preliminary decree had been obtained by the defendant in Title Suit No. 111 of 1929, Aghore, the second mortgagee, brought suit on 12th April 1929 impleading the plaintiff as one of the parties. As the plaintiff paid off the mortgage dues claimed by Aghore, the suit terminated by entering satisfaction. 4. After the delivery of possession had been obtained by the defendant on the strength of the sale dated 8th November 1929, the present plaintiff brought a suit for damages against the defendant claiming the value of fruits etc. alleged to have been appropriated by the defendant from the disputed property. This suit was ultimately disposed of on appeal, in Money Appeal No. 29 of 1931, and the entire suit was dismissed on 8th October 1931. alleged to have been appropriated by the defendant from the disputed property. This suit was ultimately disposed of on appeal, in Money Appeal No. 29 of 1931, and the entire suit was dismissed on 8th October 1931. It was held that from the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff acts of possession on two particular dates as alleged by him in the plaint could not be substantiated. The learned Subordinate Judge further observed that the proper course for the parties would be to have their title adjudicated in a properly framed Title Suit. 5. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 19th December 1941. Both the Courts have allowed the plaintiff to redeem the mortgage in favour of the defendant and the lower appellate Court has, on applying the provisions of S. 30, Bengal Money-lenders Act, fixed double the original loan as being the maximum amount which can be claimed by the mortgagee. 6. On behalf of the defendant-appellant, two points have been urged, first, that the decree which had been obtained by the defendant in Title suit No. 111 of 1929 was a paper decree only and therefore from the date of delivery of possession as under that decree the defendant must be deemed to be in adverse possession and the plaintiff having been found in the earlier money suit not to be in possession, the plaintiff's suit must be dismissed. Secondly, it is urged that the provisions of S. 30, Bengal Money-lenders Act cannot be attracted on the facts of the present case and the mortgagee is, in any view, entitled to the full amount as decreed in Title Suit No. 111 of 1929. 7. From the statement of the points themselves, it would he apparent that the two contentions are contradictory ones but I would proceed to consider the points on the merits as alternative law. 8. It is not open to the mortgagee to set up, at this stage, a case of adverse possession because he had admittedly claimed his rights as a mortgagee and obtained a decree thereon. 8. It is not open to the mortgagee to set up, at this stage, a case of adverse possession because he had admittedly claimed his rights as a mortgagee and obtained a decree thereon. The possession that he obtained on purchase in execution of the decree was on the basis of his rights as a mortgagee, It is quite a different thing as to whether the present plaintiff would be affected by such a decree obtained by the mortgagee as he was not impleaded but in my view it is not open to the defendant to contend that he had given up his position as a mortgagee at any stage. He was claiming and had continued to claim his rights as a mortgagee and he cannot be allowed to take up the position of a trespasser exercising rights of possession adversely to the real owner. If the purchaser of equity of redemption is willing to pay up the mortgage dues, it must be deemed, and specially in view of the conduct of the mortgagee throughout, that the relationship of mortgagee and mortgagor continues and the claim based on adverse possession must be overruled. 9. The next contention urged may be disposed of shortly. This is a suit to which the provisions of the Bengal Money-lenders Act apply and it is covered by cl. (c) of sub-s. (22) of S. 2 of the Act, It is a suit for redemption and as such the provisions of S. 30 of the Act would be attracted. The Court of appeal below was correct in holding that the mortgagee is not entitled to get any amount in excess of twice the original principal as admitted by him. 10. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed with costs.