JUDGMENT Chandiramani, J. - This is a defendants, appeal against the decree of Sri Mohammad Tufail Ahmad, Civil Judge, Bahraicb, dated the 4th November,1946. 2. The defendants-appellants (defendants 1 to 4) sold 43. 44 acres pukhtadari patti in v, Pitarha for Rs. 65 1/13/6 to the plaintiffs 3 to 5 on 31st December, 1934, 25.80 acres thereof were usufructuary mortgaged with Sheosaran Singh on 2lth July, 1928, and this area was in possession of the mortgagee. On 21st September, 1945, plaintiffs 3 to 5 sold their rights to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 with the permission of the Civil Judge and the Deputy Commissioner, Bahraich. A suit was filed then by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. There was a prayer also for redemption against defendant No. 5 who was alleged to be the representative of the mortgagee. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs that nothing whatever was due on the mortgage as the entire sum had been paid off from the usufruct of the property. 3. The plaintiffs claimed to be agriculturists. Defendants 1 to 4 also alleged that nothing whatever was due on the mortgage. Their case was that with the consent of defendant No. 5, the mortgagee, they were in possession of the mortgaged property. They objected that the Suit for possession could not be combined with the suit for redemption in the circumstances of this case. Defendant No. 5 the mortgagee, stated that the whole mortgage money was still due. 4. At the commencement of the arguments the plaintiffs gave up their claim for redemption. On behalf of the defendants it had been urged that the defendant No. 3 was a minor at the time of the execution of the sale-deed and, therefore, it was null and void. It was also said that the sale-deed bad been obtained by fraud. The plaintiffs had claimed compensation for certain trees which they alleged that the defendants had cut away from the property. They had claimed mesne-profit also for over three years, 5. The trial court held that defendant No. 3 was not a minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed and no fraud had been practiced and the sale-deed was perfectly valid. It held that no trees had been cut and the suit was within time. They had claimed mesne-profit also for over three years, 5. The trial court held that defendant No. 3 was not a minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed and no fraud had been practiced and the sale-deed was perfectly valid. It held that no trees had been cut and the suit was within time. It held that plaintiffs 4 and 5 would get 2/3rd share of profits from 1346F till the sale in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2, and that plaintiffs 1 and 2 would get profits for three years before the date of suit. It also held that the plaintiffs could sue for possession without paying Rs. 3000/-, which under the deed of sale they were to pay to the mortgagee but which, in fact, they had net paid. The suit was decreed accordingly against defendants 1 to 4, but was dismissed against defendant. No. 5. 6. The only point that has been urged before us in this appeal is that the learned court below was not right in decreeing the suit for possession without imposing certain conditions and restrictions at least in relation to the payment of Rs. 8000/- which admittedly had not been paid by the plaintiffs The learned trial court was of the opinion that a separate suit could be filed by the defendants to recover the sum of Rs. 3000/ -. We have heard learned counsel and are satisfied that the appeal must be allowed and the decree of the trial court will have to be modified Several authorities have been cited before us which show that it is always open to a court to impose such restrictions or conditions as the nature of the case may require when a vendee seeks to recover possession from his vendor to whom he has not paid either the whole sale price or a portion of that price, and the authorities are Shib Lal v. Bhagwan Das ILR 11. All. 244 Baijnath Singh v Paltu ILR 1945 All. 139 and Pearey Lal Vs. Hub Lal, AIR 1945 All 139 . The view in Bombay is simply-different and so also in Madras, but in Calcutta and Rangoon the view is the same as in Allahabad. In any case the Allahabad views are binding on us and we follow them. 7. All. 244 Baijnath Singh v Paltu ILR 1945 All. 139 and Pearey Lal Vs. Hub Lal, AIR 1945 All 139 . The view in Bombay is simply-different and so also in Madras, but in Calcutta and Rangoon the view is the same as in Allahabad. In any case the Allahabad views are binding on us and we follow them. 7. In this case it is not denied that Rs-3000/-which were made demand for payment to the mortgagee were not paid-The terms of the contract dearly provided that if the vendee had to pay more to the mortgagee, he would recover the excess amount paid by him from the vendor, and similarly if he had to pay less than what was left with him, the balance would be payable to the vendor-The case of both the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4 clearly was that nothing whatever is payable on account of the mortgage. In view of the authorities already cited, we think that it is fair that the plaintiffs should not recover possession of the property without pacing Rs- 3000/- which they had failed to pay. 8. Accordingly we allow the appeal and modify the decree of the learned trial court to this extend that the plaintiffs shall be entitled to recover possession on paying Rs. 3000/-to the defendants 1 to 4" The parties shall bear their own costs in all the courts.