JUDGMENT : NEWASKAR, J. 1. On a reference made by Dixit J. this matter has been placed before the Full Bench. 2. The brief facts which have given rise to this re-reference, as will appear from the order of reference are as follows : On 14-6-1952 two persons Muralidhar and Bhagavanta mortgaged with possessors certain number of fields situated in the Zamindari village of Wareh with one Tundesingh for a consideration of Rs. 54/- under a registered deed of mortgage. The property was liable to be redeemed on repayment of mortgage money. Thereafter the same mortgagors effected two several mortgages in respect of some other pieces of land situated in the same village for Rs. 51/- and 384 respectively on 1-3-1927. Both these latter mortgages were also with possession. Similar terms consisting inter alia of a condition for redemption on repayment of the mortgage amount were also incorporated in the documents entered into between the parties in respect of these mortgages. Tundesingh died and is succeeded by his newphews Ramacharan, Babu and Badri sons of Tulsiram, Muralidhar alleged that he approached these newphews of mortgagee Tundesingh several times to get the mortgaged property redeemed but evaded. This according to him would put him to an annual loss of Rs. 40/-. He therefore filed a suit for redemption of all these properties covered by the aforesaid three mortgages on payment of Rs. 486/-. He further prayed for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 40/- per annum. He impleaded in this suit co-mortgagor Bhagavanta as a party defendant as he refused to join as plaintiff. 3. Defendant No. 1 Ramacharan filed a separate written statement, wherein he practically admitted the creation of all the three mortgages except as regards the number of one field which he erroneously believed to be ¼ when in fact it was described in the plaint as 21/4. He denied that plaintiff ever offered to redeem these mortgages and tendered the mortgage amount. He further pleaded that there were further advances amounting to Rs. 500/- and a charge in respect of this amount rests upon the mortgaged properties. Defendant No. 4 Bhagavanta is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs. 57/- as the Manager of the family of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's right to sue as the sole plaintiff is denied and lastly it is claimed in the alternative that only on payment of (Rs. Defendant No. 4 Bhagavanta is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs. 57/- as the Manager of the family of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's right to sue as the sole plaintiff is denied and lastly it is claimed in the alternative that only on payment of (Rs. 486 plus 500 plus 57) 1043 redemption could be permitted. 4. Defence raised on behalf of the other defendants was evasive. They denied all knowledge about the transaction and their liability in respect of the plaintiff's claim. 5. The suit apparently involving very little controversy, remained pending in the trial Court from the date of its filing in 1944 till 25th June 1951. On this latter date the- Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act came into force and thereafter on 2-10-1951 a notification was issued under S. 3 of the Act as a result of which all the Zamindari lands in the State of Madhya Bharat vested in the State. An application thereupon was submitted on behalf of the defendants that since the mortgaged properties are vested in the State the present suit has become infructuous and could not be proceeded with. 6. This contention found favour with the trial Court who upheld the same and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff appealed to the District Judge who disagreed with the view taken by the trial Court and held that there was no bar to the continuance of the suit. He, therefore, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanded the case for further trial and disposal according to law. The defendants now appealed against this order of remand to this Court. 7. The question which arose for consideration in this appeal and for which the present reference is made is as follows : "Whether after the coming into force of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, a suit for redemption of a Zamindari property which was mortgaged with possession and which was vested in the State under the Act can be maintained or continued ?" 8. The answer to this question will depend Upon the consideration as to whether there is any provisions in the Act by which maintenance or continuance of such a suit is expressly or by necessary implication barred and I propose to deal with both these aspects presently. 9. Section 32 of the Act provides for matters in respect of which jurisdiction of Civil Courts is expressly barred. 9. Section 32 of the Act provides for matters in respect of which jurisdiction of Civil Courts is expressly barred. The Section reads as follows : "Section 32 : The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, be barred in respect of- (1) any matter pending before a Claims Officer; (2) the claim for any secured debt or claim which has been discharged or deemed to have been discharged under Section 21; (3) the recovery of any secured debt or claim determined under Section 23 except in the matter provided for in Section 27." 10. In order to appreciate what cases are covered by Sub-S. (1) of S. 32 we must look back to Sections 11 to 12 contained in chapter III dealing with the subject of assessment of compensation payable to the proprietors and Sections 18 to 27 contained in chapter III dealing with the subject of determination of debts. 11. Section 11 provides for a submission of the statement of his claim by a proprietor within 30 days from the date of vesting in the prescribed form and duly verified. Section 12 provides for the determination of the amount of compensation due to a claimant by the deputy compensation officer either on receipt of the statement under Section 11 or where no such statement is received after making such enquiry as he thinks fit. This determination has to be made after giving an opportunity to the claimant to be heard. 12. Section 13 makes a provision for the cases where a question of title is raised during the course of an enquiry before the deputy compensation officer, a regards the proprietary right in any property divested under Section 3 of the Act, to the effect that if the question raised is not already decided by a Civil Court the deputy compensation officer should refer the same to the claims officer who is invested with a jurisdiction to enquire summarily into the merits of such question and pass such orders as he thinks fit. The decision of the claims officer is to be final subject to decision of a Civil Court on a suit being filed within two months of such decision. The decision of the claims officer is to be final subject to decision of a Civil Court on a suit being filed within two months of such decision. Section 18 provides for submission of an application either by a proprietor or by a secured creditor to the claims officer specifying therein the amount and particulars of all debts and claims against or due to them duly verified. 13. Section 19 authorises the claims office to issue notice where he finds that a suit or a proceeding is pending against a proprietor for the recovery of any amount in respect of a secured debt or claim and to stay such suit or proceeding. Section 20 provides for fixation of a date for hearing by claims officer. Sub-section 2 of the section enables a creditor to object to the proceedings before the claims officer on the ground that the debtor does not earn his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture or rents or lease money received from agricultural land. If the objection is allowed then nothing further need be done but if objection is disallowed the proceedings are to continue. 14. Section 21 : The Claims Officer thereafter may require the creditors to submit the statements of his debts where the same are not already filed as prescribed within the prescribed time limit and if the same are not so submitted they are deemed for all purposes and all occasions to have been discharged against the debtors concerned. Power is given to the Claims Officer to extend the time limit in proper cases. Further provision is made enabling the Claims Officer to require the creditor to produce the documents upon which he bases his claim and also to furnish a full and true statement of account of all previous transactions between him and the debtors and authorising the Claims Officer to declare the debt to be discharged as aforesaid on his failure to produce the requisite documents. 15. Section 22 conferred power upon the claims officer to require proof of validity and subsisting character of the debt due to a creditor. It further provides that where a debtor objects to the claim preferred by a creditor on the ground that the debt was not incurred or that it is not binding upon him the Claims Officer should stay his hand and not determine the amount due. It further provides that where a debtor objects to the claim preferred by a creditor on the ground that the debt was not incurred or that it is not binding upon him the Claims Officer should stay his hand and not determine the amount due. Section 23 authorises the Claims Officer to re-open all transactions within 12 years and enables him to calculate interest in accordance with the provision contained therein. Section 24 provides for priorities amongst the creditors. 16. Section 25 deals with the subject of distribution of compensation. Section 26 enables the Claims Officer to record an order indicating therein the amount remaining unpaid after distribution of compensation as aforesaid, the name of the creditor to whom it is due and the particulars of other property in respect of such a claim remaining encumbered. Section 27 provides for a remedy for the recovery of the amount remaining unrecovered as aforesaid through Civil Court. 17. Thus, on a resume of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that under Sub-s. (1) of S. 32, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred only in those cases where any matter is pending before a Claims Officer under the aforesaid provisions. 18. Such matters are where a reference is made by a deputy compensation officer on a question of title being raised under S. 13 of the Act and secondly where after an application either by a creditor or by a debtor the Claims Officer proceeds to determine the amount of debt payable by a debtor to the secured creditor, determines the question of priorities and orders distribution of the amount of compensation amongst the persons entitled to the same. While these matters are pending the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred and the decision of the claims officer within the compass of their jurisdiction is final and conclusive subject to the limitations as to appeal and review. 19. Sub-Section (2) of S. 32 provides for cases where the debt due to a secured creditor is by legal fiction held to be duly discharged under S. 21. In such a case the Civil Courts have no longer jurisdiction to enquire about it or enforce its payment. 20. 19. Sub-Section (2) of S. 32 provides for cases where the debt due to a secured creditor is by legal fiction held to be duly discharged under S. 21. In such a case the Civil Courts have no longer jurisdiction to enquire about it or enforce its payment. 20. Sub-Section (3) of Section 32 lays down that a secured debt or a claim which is determined under S. 23 is not to be recoverable through civil courts except in the manner laid down in S. 27 referred to above. 21. These are the only three cases where the jurisdiction of civil courts is specifically taken away. It is frankly conceded before us that there is nothing on record to indicate that any matter covering the question of title on a reference by deputy compensation officer to claims officer is pending before that officer or that any of the parties before us have applied to the Claims Officer under S. 18 for determination of the debt due from the debtor to the secured creditor and the matter is pending consideration before him. 22. Since the present objection for the continuance of the suit is raised on behalf of the secured creditor or alleged secured creditor no question of applicability of the second clause from the nature of things can arise. Conditions for the applicability of the third clause are out of question. 23. It, therefore, follows that the present suit for redemption of a mortgage where mortgage is one with possession is not barred under specific provisions of S. 32 of the Act. 24. We have next to consider whether such a suit is barred by necessary implication. 25. To answer this question, we have first to consider what constitutes a right of redemption generally and particularly what constitutes right of redemption in cases where mortgage is with possession and further what reliefs a mortgagor, in the case of a usufructuary mortgage, can claim in a suit framed as one for redemption. 26. Section 60, T.P. Act describes what in law constitutes a right of redemption. 26. Section 60, T.P. Act describes what in law constitutes a right of redemption. This section reads as follows : "Section 60.- At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage deed and all documents relating to the mortgage property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee, (b) where the mortgagee is in possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to retransfer the mortgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct, or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) to have registered an acknowledgment in writing that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished. Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by the act of the parties or by decree of a Court. The right conferred by this section is called a right to redeem and a suit to enforce it is called a suit for redemption." 27. It is clear from this section that after the mortgage-money has become due three kinds of right arise in the mortgagor, viz., (a) to require mortgagee to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee; (b) to obtain possession where mortgagee is in possession; (c) to secure retransfer of mortgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct or to secure a registered acknowledgment in writing from the mortgagee that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished. 28. Now a suit properly instituted to enforce these rights cannot be rendered abortive unless the plaintiff's right for enforcement of any of them is extinguished by the operation of the Act which is put forward as a bar to its continuance. Not only this but it must also appear that he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in view of the subsequent change of event. 29. Not only this but it must also appear that he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in view of the subsequent change of event. 29. For, it is well-established that although ordinarily the Court has to determine rights and obligations between the parties as they exist on the date of institution of the suit yet in some cases it may be obligatory upon it to take into account subsequent events including changes in law and to mould the relief according to the changed circumstances vide - 'Meghaji Mohanji v. Anant Pandurang', AIR 1948 Bom 396 (A) and Mulla's Civil Procedure Code, Order 7, Rule 7, page 612 (12th edition) and cases collected there. 30. Zamindari Abolition Act is an Act which provides for the compulsory acquisition by the State of Zamindari property on payment of compensation as indicated in the Act. Proprietor's right in respect of the property is substituted by a right to obtain compensation from the State to the extent and in the manner provided by the Act. 31. Section 73(2), T.P. Act lays down : "Section 73(2) - Where the mortgaged property or any part thereof or any interest therein is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or any other enactment for the time being in force providing for the compulsory acquisition of immoveable property, the mortgagee shall be entitled to claim payment of the mortgage-money, in whole or in part, out of the amount due to the mortgagor as compensation." 32. it is clear from this provision that initial mortgage security is substituted by the compensation money and the mortgagee is afforded the same rights against the fund as he had against the mortgaged property for the realization of his dues. If then the mortgagor has to get himself free from this obligation existing as against the compensation-money this cannot otherwise be done except by having recourse to a suit or by following the procedure laid down in the Act. 33. If then the mortgagor has to get himself free from this obligation existing as against the compensation-money this cannot otherwise be done except by having recourse to a suit or by following the procedure laid down in the Act. 33. Examining the possible availability of the three kinds of rights as indicated in S. 60, T.P. Act, it appears that although the mortgagor's rights in the zamindari property have vested free from all encumbrances by reason of the provisions of S. 3(1) of the Act he may yet be entitled, on payment of mortgage-money to the mortgagee, to the mortgage deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property and he can still claim an acknowledgment in writing from the mortgagee that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to him had been extinguished. Moreover, under certain contingencies a proprietor may be entitled to possession of a property even under the Act as his khud khashta. 34. Therefore as long as the creditor has a right to lay his claim to the substituted security in the shape of compensation money and as long as he (the mortgagor ?) can get back his mortgage deed and an acknowledgment as regards the extinguishment of mortgagee's right his right to continue the suit cannot be taken away unless the law specifically provides for the same. Under certain contingencies he may possibly be entitled to get possession at least of part of the mortgaged property. 35. Then there is one more aspect involved in a suit filed on the basis of a possessory mortgage of usufructuary sort. 36. A mortgagor may be entitled to accounts from the mortgagee for the profits realised, then there may be ancillary reliefs based on the relation of a mortgagor and usufructuary mortgagee and all these cannot be determined and relief granted on that basis except by a suit for redemption specially designed for the purpose; such claims may consist of a claim for any deterioration in value of the property due to negligence on the part of the mortgagor when he is, by the terms of the mortgage, required to keep the property in the same condition in which it was when the mortgage in question was created or a claim for mesne profits if the suit for redemption filed long back remained pending. 37. 37. In all these cases plaintiff will be entitled to some relief though perhaps he may not be able to get back the property. 38. And above all this he will be entitled to a declaration, where the relationship of a mortgagor and mortgagee is denied that there was a relation existing between the parties of mortgagor and mortgagee on the date of institution of the suit. 39. In some cases, where the amount due to mortgagee is not determined in accordance with the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act the same will have to be determined in a suit for redemption. 40. Thus because the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act does not specifically bar such suit and also because there is nothing in the Act by which such suits are impliedly barred and their continuance impliedly prohibited the suit out of which present reference has arisen cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act has come into force and the Zamindari lands have all vested in the State. 41. What relief plaintiff will be entitled to in the changed context is a matter which will be determined by the Court having regard to the entire circumstances of a particular case and no general rule can be laid down for the purpose. 42. Whether in this particular case, the mortgagor is or is not entitled to possession of any portion, of the property as his Khud Kastha I should not be taken to have determined that being a matter left for the consideration of the trial Court. 43. My answer therefore to this reference is that after the coming into force of Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, a suit for redemption of usufructuary mortgage of a Zamindari property can be maintained and continued. 44. The answer given above will govern this appeal as well as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5/53 which is placed along with this for hearing as the question involved in the latter appeal is also the same. 45. SHINDE, C. J. – I agree. DIXIT, J. 46. When I made this reference, I had not the advantage of listening to the above arguments addressed by the learned Advocate-General before the Full Bench. The matter was fully argued before the Full Bench and I am now inclined to agree to the view expressed by my learned brother Nevaskar, J. Answer accordingly.