JUDGMENT Misra, J. - The revision arises out of proceedings for redemption u/s 12, Agriculturist's Relief Act. 2. The transaction which is sought to be redeemed is in form a qabuliat executed by Mst. Dhanraji and Rachhpali Kuar in favour of Mobarak and Sohrab on January 17, 1936. It is styled as a zarpeshgs(sic) lease in lieu of Rs. 50/-. The applicant Mst. Dhanraji who succeeded to the interest of Mst. Rachhpali Kuar styled the transaction as a mortgage and claimed redemption without payment of anything on the allegation that the mortgage money had been satisfied from the usutruct of the plots covered by the deed. The period set down in the document was five years, that is to say, from 344 F. to 1346 F. 3. The principal questions which arose for determination in the court below were firstly, whether the transaction could be regarded as one of mortgage and secondly whether it could be redeemed u/s 12 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. 4. The Revenue Officer before whom the proceedings took place held that the transaction of 1936 was a mortgage and was redeemable as such and since the opposite-parties agreed that the usufruct was sufficient to satisfy the consideration of the deed he allowed redemption without any payment. The lower Appellate Court, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the claim was maintainable in view of the fact that the deed if it garded as a mortgage was not enforceable. It accordingly set aside the decision of the learned Revenue Officer and dismissed the application for redemption. Mst. Dhanraji has come up to this Court by way of revision. 5. I have heard the Appellant's learned Counsel and after a careful consideration of the case I have no doubt in my mind that the decision of the lower appellate court is correct. The deed of 1936 is as stated above on the face of it a qabuliat and states that the transaction into which the parties entered as a zari-ptshgi(sic) lease I have no reason to think otherwise but assuming that the transaction could be regarded as a mortgage, Section 9 Agriculturists' Relief Act would obviously render it invalid. The provisions of that section may be reproduced. 6. The provisions of that section may be reproduced. 6. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, IV of 1882, or any contract to the contrary no mortgage of land or grove by an agriculturist made after the commencement of this Act shall be valid if, under the terms of such mortgage, possession of the mortgaged land or grove is delivered to the mortgagee, unless the mortgagee is authorised to retain such possession and to receive the rents and profits of such land or grove both in lieu of interest and towards payment of the principal on condition that on the expiry of a fixed term not exceeding twenty years, the mortgaged land or grove shall be redelivered to the mortgagor and the mortgage-debt shall be deemed to have been discharged. 7. The transfer evidenced by the deed in suit being clearly in contravention of this section, it must be deemed to be wholly invalid. Section 12 was designed to apply only to valid mortgages. Chapter III of the Agriculturists' Relief Act obviously cannot be availed of for redemption of a mortgage which is declared by it to be invalid and inoperative. It is urged on behalf of the applicant however, that the case is governed by the principles enunciated in Lal Behari v. Mahadeo Prasad, 1945 A.W.R. 73, Ghassu v. Babu Ram, 1944 A.W.R. 34, Lachman v. All Bux, 1947 O.W.N. 362 and Ramadhar Rai v. Dudhnath Rai, 1948 A.W.R. 133. These ease refer to mortgages of muafi lands and they lay down that though the transfers may be avoided by the landlord, they remain operative and enforceable between the parties thereto I am unable to find anything common between the present case and the cases referred to above for in the present case the Act of which the applicant claimed the benefit, expressly declared that mortgages of lands and groves by agriculturists made after the commencement of the enactment would be invalid if under their terms possession was given to the mortgagee and the rents and profits were to be received by him in lieu of interest and principal unless the bonds were self-liquidating mortgages for twenty years. 8. 8. It was also contended that the transaction of January 17, 1936 was entered, into under a mistake of law and since a mistake of law stood on the same footing as a mistake of fact, the transaction could not be treated as void. The decision in Sache Singh v. Hadayat Ullah, 140 I.C 863, was cited in support of the proposition. I regret 1 can see no warrant for the contention. Contravention of the express terms of Section 9, it would seem obviously cannot be relieved against by recourse to the personal covenant contained in the deed. 9. There is no substance in this revision. It fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.