JUDGMENT M.L. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision against the order of the learned Civil Judge of Bulandshahr. 2. The Plaintiffs applicants filed an application u/s 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act praying for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage executed by the predecessors in interest of the applicants. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 1,500 and the case of the Plaintiffs was that the opposite parties mortgagees have recovered not only the interest on this sum but also realised in full the principal amount advanced by the mortgagees. The application was filed in the court of the Munsif and it was contested on behalf of the opposite parties. They denied that the Plaintiffs had any right to redeem the mortgage and asserted that they have recovered a very small portion of the profits. The Munsif held that the applicants were successors in interest of the mortgagors and were thus entitled to apply for the redemption of the mortgage. He also held that the applicants were agriculturists on the date of the application and that the original mortgagor was also agriculturist on the date of the mortgage. He accordingly was of the opinion that the Plaintiffs were entitled to redemption but he held that the mortgagees had not been able to recover any part of the principal money and the whole of it was still due. Redemption was accordingly decreed on payment of Rs. 1,500 by the Plaintiffs. The Munsif decreed the suit on 6-10-1952 and the opposite parties went up in appeal against that decision During the pendency of the appeal the UPZA and LR Act came into force and Section 14 of the Act provided that a mortgagee in possession of an estate or share therein shall, with effect from the date of vesting cease to have any right to hold or possess the land but if such land was in personal cultivation of the mortgagee on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting the mortgagor would acquire the rights of bhumidhar in the land if it was his sir or khudkasht. If it was not the mortgagors sir or khudkasht and the land was in the personal cultivation of the mortgagee, the mortgagee was granted an opportunity of paying five times the amount of annual rent calculated at hereditary rates, within six months, to the State Government and he was then to be deemed to be hereditary tenant of the land. In the UPZA and LR Act as originally passed there was no provision deleting the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The ZA and LR Act was, however, subsequently amended by the UPZA and LR (Amendment) Act, 1953 (Act XVI of 1953). By Section 67 of this amending Act an entry was inserted in Sch. 3 of the principal Act which was numbered as entry No. 13A. This entry had the effect of repealing the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act in areas where the ZA and LR Act was in force. This amending Act was given retrospective operation excepting with reference to three sections of it with which we are not concerned. The result of the amendment was that the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act stood repealed with effect from 1-7-1952. When the appeal filed by the opposite parties before the learned Civil Judge came up for hearing, an objection was taken before him that the Agriculturists' Relief Act having been repealed and the repeal having come into force from before the date of the decree of the Munsif the decree as well as all proceedings taken by the applicants u/s 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, should be set aside. The learned Civil Judge gave effect to this contention and dismissed the suit but he gave a direction that the suit would only be dismissed if the opposite parties deposited back the sum of Rs. 1,500 within three weeks from the date of the judgment. It appears that after the decree of the Munsif the applicants had deposited this sum of Rs. 1,500 and the same had been withdrawn by the opposite parties. 3. The present revision has been filed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge. 1,500 within three weeks from the date of the judgment. It appears that after the decree of the Munsif the applicants had deposited this sum of Rs. 1,500 and the same had been withdrawn by the opposite parties. 3. The present revision has been filed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the subsequent repeal of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act should not have the effect of setting aside the decree which he had already obtained before the amending Act came into force and also that under the provisions of the ZA and LR Act his clients were entitled to the possession of the land. He also made an application for amendment of the application filed u/s 12 of the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act praying that the same be treated as an application u/s 209 of the UPZA and LR Act. I was not inclined to allow this application and propose to decide the revision according to the pleadings as they are at present. 4. As already stated, when the decree was passed by the Munsif it was perfectly a correct decree according to the law as it then stood. The opposite parties filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appear U.P. Act XVI of 1953 came into operation. It repealed the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and this repeal took effect from 1-7-1952. The learned Civil Judge was of the opinion that Section 6 of the UP General Clauses Act would have no application to the case before him and that the decree of the Munsif must be set aside as a decree passed under a defunct Act. I do not agree with this view of the learned Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge was of the opinion that Section 6 of the UP General Clauses Act would have no application to the case before him and that the decree of the Munsif must be set aside as a decree passed under a defunct Act. I do not agree with this view of the learned Civil Judge. The relevant portion of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is as follows: Where any (UP) Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not (b) Affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder, or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any remedy, or any investigation or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such remedy may be enforced and any such investigation or legal proceeding may be continued and concluded, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed. 5. I think the instant case is covered by Section 6 quoted above. Under the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act an application had been made u/s 12 and under the same Act the application had been allowed and redemption ordered by the Munsif before the repealing Act came into operation. The applicants were entitled to the remedy of redemption and had actually commenced and succeeded in the legal proceeding. It appears to me that the decree passed by the learned Munsif should not have been set aside on the ground that after the repeal of the UP Agriculturists' Relief Act the decree of the learned Munsif became void and in operative. 6. If the ZA and LR Act had brought about a different position and had conferred rights on the opposite parties which were different from the rights granted by the Agriculturists' Relief Act the position might have been different and the opposite parties might have pleaded that they were not entitled to ejectment because they had acquired certain rights under the UP ZA and LR Act. But that does not appear to be the position in this case. But that does not appear to be the position in this case. Under the law as it stood prior to the coming into force of the ZA and LR Act, the applicants as legal representatives of the mortgagors were entitled to redeem the mortgage and obtain possession of the property. u/s 14 of the ZA and LR Act the mortgagee in possession of any estate or part of it looses his right to remain in possession of the property as mortgagee. But if the same land is in his personal cultivation and if it was sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of mortgage it reverts to the mortgagor and the mortgagor becomes bhumidhar of that land. If the land was not sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage and the land was in personal cultivation of mortgagee the mortgagee has been given a right to pay to the State Government an amount equal to five times the rent and become a sirdar of the land. 7. The finding of both the courts below is that the land in suit was sir or khudkasht of the mortgagors on the date of the mortgage and it also appears to be undisputed that on the date of vesting the land was in the personal cultivation of the mortgagees. Section 14 of the Act applies to the present case and the applicants were entitled to possession of the land. The fact that the applicants were not original mortgagors but were auction purchasers of the right of redemption of the mortgage seems to make no difference to their tight to obtain possession of the land - under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the ZA and L.R. Act. Not only the mortgagors but also their legal representatives have been given a right of claiming the sir and khudkasht land. 8. For the above reasons I think that the decision of the learned Civil Judge has to be set aside as he had refused to apply the provisions of law which were applicable to the case and he had no jurisdiction to pass the decree which he had done. 9. The result is that this revision is allowed and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge is set aside and that passed by the learned Munsif is restored. 9. The result is that this revision is allowed and the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge is set aside and that passed by the learned Munsif is restored. The opposite parties to the revision would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs. 1,500 if they have deposited it in court in obedience of the orders of the learned Civil Judge. In case the amount has been withdrawn by the applicants they will be bound to pay it back to the opposite parties within a period of two months from today, otherwise this revision would stand dismissed. The applicants will be entitled to the costs of this revision from the opposite parties but the costs in the courts below will be on the parties.