JUDGMENT Randhi Singh, J. - This is a Defendants' first appeal arising out of a suit brought u/s 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act by a person claiming to be a mortgagor of certain property, for accounting. 2. Shabzade Singh and Shrimati Chet Kunwar executed an usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of one Ganga Bakhsh Singh on the 18th March, 1901, for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. Most of the amount borrowed under the mortgage was left in deposit with the mortgagee for payment to various creditors of the mortgagors and it was also stipulated that if the mortgagee paid anything in excess of Rs. 15,000/ -, he would be entitled to get interest at six per cent on that amount and that amount would be payable along with the mortgage money at the time of redemption. The mortgagors' equity of redemption and the mortgagee's rights transferred hands from time to time, but it is not necessary to make a mention of all those transactions in view of the points raised in this appeal. The Plaintiff claiming to have acquired an interest in the equity of redemption from the mortgagors brought the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, against the persons holding at that moment the mortgagee rights The Plaintiff had purchased the entire share of Shahzide Singh in Lahrapur by means of a sale deed dated the 2nd July, 1938, and he had also acquired one-sixth share in the equity of redemption in the other village sultanpur from one Jadu Nath Singh, The remaining 5/6 this share in the equity of redemption in respect of village Sultanpur was owned by Defendants Nos. 13 to 15. The Plaintiff claimed to be an agriculturist and as such entitled to maintain a suit u/s 33 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. 3. The suit was contested by Defendants Nos. 1 to 6. 10 and 11, as also by Defendants Nos. 13 and 14. Defendant No. 14 subsequently withdraw his contest. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, 1 and 11 did not file any written statement but they adopted the written statement filed by Defendant No. 13, Jadu Nath Singh. 3. The suit was contested by Defendants Nos. 1 to 6. 10 and 11, as also by Defendants Nos. 13 and 14. Defendant No. 14 subsequently withdraw his contest. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, 1 and 11 did not file any written statement but they adopted the written statement filed by Defendant No. 13, Jadu Nath Singh. It was alleged on behalf of Jadu Nath Singh that Srimati Chet Kunwar was owner of a half share of the property which was the subject of the mortgage in her capacity of a Hindu widow and that her rights passed after her death to her daughter and thereafter to her daughter's sons. It was also denied that the Plaintiff was an agriculturist and as such entitled to maintain a suit for accounting u/s 3.3 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. Various other pleas were raised and a number of issues were framed by the trial Court, but, in view of the arguments advanced before us, it is not necessary to refer to the other points of contest raised by the contesting Defendants in the Court below. 4. The lower Court found that daughters were excluded under a family custom from inheritance and that Shrimati Chet Kunwar was not the owner of a half share in the mortgaged property and that she bad joined as a co-mortgagor only as her name appeared in the khewat. The Plaintiff was held to be an agriculturist. Accounting was then done and it was held that Rs. 362/1/ - were due on account of the mortgage deed. One other point of contest which had been raised on behalf of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and 10 and 11 was that they were entitled to six per cent interest on the amount advanced in excess of Rs. 15,000/- under the mortgage deed. The court found that Rs. 2,609/ - had been advanced in excess of Rs. 15,000/- and this amount was taken into consideration in arriving at the amount due on account of the mortgage. A small piece of property, which was a part of the mortgaged property, was also acquired by the Government some time in 1927 and Rs. 900/, which had been received by the mortgagees on account of compensation, was also set off against the amount due under the mortgage. 5. Dissatisfied with the decree of the lower Court, Defendants Nos. A small piece of property, which was a part of the mortgaged property, was also acquired by the Government some time in 1927 and Rs. 900/, which had been received by the mortgagees on account of compensation, was also set off against the amount due under the mortgage. 5. Dissatisfied with the decree of the lower Court, Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, 10 and 11 have now come up in appeal. Some of the original Appellants died during the pendency of the appeal and their legal representatives have been brought on the record. 6. The first point which arises for consideration in this appeal is if Shrimati Chet Kunwar, who joined as a co-mortgagor with Shahzade Singh, had any interest in the property at the time of the mortgage. In the Court below the position taken up, was that Shrimati Chet Kunwar was owner of a half share of the property as a Hindu widow and no question of her absolute interest in the property was raised in the pleadings in the Court below by the contesting Defendants, who are the Appellants in this appeal. It has, however, been argued in this Court that Shrimati Chet Kunwar had acquired an absolute interest in the property and this interest passed to her daughter Shrimati Kalyani irrespective of the custom under which daughters were excluded from inheritance. 7. A brief history of how the property came into the hands of Shabzade Singh and Shrimati Chet Kunwar may be given. The property, it appears from the wajib-ul-arz (Ex. 17), originally belonged to the common ancestor of Laiq Singh and Durjan, who made the summary settlement with the Government some time about 1857-58. By a proclamation of Lord Canning dated the 15th March, 1858, the entire property in the soil of Oudh was confiscated by the Government and it was only by subsequent orders of the Government that the property was restored to former owners. It has been contended on behalf of the Appellants that the grant of the property after the confiscation by the Government to various persons in Oudh was a fresh grant and wiped out all the previous rights of the original owners. It has been contended on behalf of the Appellants that the grant of the property after the confiscation by the Government to various persons in Oudh was a fresh grant and wiped out all the previous rights of the original owners. It could not be disputed that after the proclamation of March 1858 the rights of the former proprietors in the entire property were lost to them and the Government became the owner of the proprietary and other rights in the soil of Oudh. The effect of the first regular settlement made after the proclamation of 1858 has been the subject of consideration in various rulings of the erstwhile Judicial Commissioner's Court, the Chief Court and the Privy Council. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has relied upon a ruling in Jadunath Singh v. Bisheshar Singh 1939 A.W.R (C.C.) 21, and it has been contended that it would not be necessary or open to the Courts to go behind the entries in the regular settlement to find out the title of the persons whose names have been recorded in the first regular settlement and that these entries should be held as documents of title. 8. On behalf of the Respondents reliance has been placed on two rulings, Prince Mirza Jehan Kadr Bahadoor v. Nawab Badshoo Bahoo Sahiba L.R. 12 IndAp 124, and Avadh Bekari Singh and Anr. v. Suraj Bali 22 O.C. 201. A perusal of these rulings clearly shows that although the property was regranted to persons after the confiscation in 1858, yet the restoration of property was not made on an arbitrary basis and properties were restored only to their former owners after an enquiry by the Settlement Courts. It would, therefore, be necessary to examine the circumstances under which restoration of the property was made by way of fresh grants in order to find out the exact nature of the interest granted by, the Settlement decrees or entered in the Settlement record. 9. In the present case a copy of the wajib-ul-arz, which also contains a copy of the khewat prepared at that time, has been filed (vide Ex. 17). In this document Shahzade and Shrimati Chet Kunwar are mentioned as owners of a half share each in ten biswas share of village Lahrapur and also of the same share in village Sultanpur. In the present case a copy of the wajib-ul-arz, which also contains a copy of the khewat prepared at that time, has been filed (vide Ex. 17). In this document Shahzade and Shrimati Chet Kunwar are mentioned as owners of a half share each in ten biswas share of village Lahrapur and also of the same share in village Sultanpur. As pointed out above, the property had not been shown to have been acquired by Shrimati Chet Kunwar before it was confiscated from anybody out of her own money and the evidence furnished by the wajib-ul-arz itself shows that this property had belonged to the ancestors of Laiq Singh. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that Shrimati Chet Kunwar did not acquire the property in her own right as an absolute owner at any time before it was confiscated and she must have been in possession if at all either as a Hindu widow or in lieu of maintenance. It would be difficult, therefore, to interpret this entry as showing or conferring an absolute estate on Shrimati Chet Kunwar. 10. In the mortgage deed executed by Shahzade Singh and Srimati Chet Kunwar also it is clearly mentioned by the two mortgagors that the mortgagors formed a joint Hindu family and that the property was the joint family property. It is significant that Ganga Bakhsh Singh, the mortgagee, was the own son-in-law of Chet Kunwar and he could not have agreed to obtain an incorrect admission in the deed if, in fact, Chet Kunwar was an absolute owner of a half of the property, which was shown in the khewat against her name. We are, therefore, satisfied that Shrimati Chet Kunwar was not the absolute owner of the property entered in her name in the khewat prepared at the time of the first regular settlement. It is not necessary to decide as to whether the husband of Shrimati Chet Kunwar had separated from Shahzade and as such she had acquired a life interest in a half share of the property, which was originally joint family property of her husband Gaya Din Singh, and Shahzade Singh, as there is a finding of the lower Court that there is a custom in the family which excludes inheritance of daughters in the property of their father. This finding of the Court below has not been challenged in this case. This finding of the Court below has not been challenged in this case. Even if Chat Kunwar had a life interest in the property at the time of the mortgage, it passed to Shahzade Singh of his male heirs on the death of Shrimati Chet Kunwar. 11. The only other point which has been pressed in arguments on behalf of the Appellants is that they were entitled to interest at six per cent on the amount of Rs. 2,609 which was advanced in excess of Rs. 15,000 under the terms of the mortgage deed. There were a number of items, which were left in deposit with the mortgagee for payment to various creditors of the mortgagors. All these items have been considered by the Court below. We are, however, unable to agree with the finding of trial Court with regard to items Nos. 4 to 6 and 7, These items were left in deposit with the mortgagee for payment to the creditors. No satisfactory evidence was adduced on behalf of the mortgagee to prove that these items had in fact been paid to the persons to whom they were to be paid, we, therefore, find that the mortgagee has succeeded in proving that he paid Rs. 2,122 only in excess of Rs. 15,000 and the mortgagee was entitled to recover interest at 6 P.C. perannum on this amount from the date of the mortgage to the end of 1929. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has also conceded that the mortgagee was entitled to this interest. The counsel for the parties agree that the total amount due under the mortgage on the date when the decree was passed by the Court below would come to a little over Rs. 4,000 and may be taken to be Rs. 4,000. No other point has been pressed in arguments. 12. As a result, the appeal is allowed to this extent that the decree passed by the lower Court is modified to this extent that the figure of Rs. 4,000 shall be substituted for Rs. 362-1. This amount is due on account of the entire mortgage. The Plaintiff's share in the equity of redemption was 7/12 only. 13. The parties shall bear their own costs in both the Courts.