JUDGMENT Gurtu, J. - The question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to whether the word 'mortgagor' in S. 14 (2) (a) of the ZA and LR Act includes the holder of the equity of redemption. I may proceed to quote the whole of S. 14 as it will enable one to appreciate the decision which I am giving. 14 Estate in possession of a mortgagee with possession- (1) Subject to the provision of subsection. (2) 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 as such any land in such estate. (3) Where any such land was in the personal cultivation of the mortgagee on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting- (a) If it was Sir or Khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage, the same shall, for purposes of S. 18, be deemed to be the Sir or Khudkasht of the mortgagor or his legal representative ; (b) If it was not Sir or Khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage the mortgagee shall subject to his paying to the State Govt., within six months from the date of vesting any amount equal to five times the rent calculated at hereditary rates applicable on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, be deemed for purposes of S. 19, to have held such land on the date aforesaid as a hereditary tenant thereof at the said rate of rent: Provided that if the mortgagee fails to pay the "amount aforesaid within the time allowed, he shall thereupon lose all rights in such land which shall be deemed to be vacant land and he shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the Collector u/s 209 as if he were a person in possession thereof otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 2. The view of the court below is that the word 'mortgagor' includes the owner of the equity of redemption. The contention raised before me on behalf of the Appellant is that the word 'mortgagor' does not include the owner of the equity of redemption. Neither the word 'mortgagor' nor the word 'mortgagee' have been defined in the ZA and LR Act. The contention raised before me on behalf of the Appellant is that the word 'mortgagor' does not include the owner of the equity of redemption. Neither the word 'mortgagor' nor the word 'mortgagee' have been defined in the ZA and LR Act. It is, however, evident that the word 'mortgagor' and the word 'mortgagee' can have no other meaning than what has been assigned to them under the Transfer of Property Act. 3. S. 59 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act lays down that Unless otherwise expressly provided, reference in Ch. IV to mortgagor and mortgagee shall be deemed to include reference to persons deriving title from them respectively. 4. This means that the terms 'mortgagor' includes at least, for the purposes of that chapter in the Transfer of Property Act, the holders of the equity of redemption. The contention which is advanced before me is that references to mortgagors and mortgagees in S. 59 (a) would include reference to persons deriving title from them only for purposes of Ch. IV. Strictly speaking that may be so. 5. It seems to me however that in the absence of any definition of the term 'mortgagor' in the ZA and LR Act one may well fall back upon the concept of the word mortgagor in S. 59 (a) of the Transport of Property Act. After all some definition has to be given to the term 'mortgagor', and the Transfer of Property Act is the best place to turn to for guidance. Even if recourse is not had to the Transfer of Property Act and the term 'mortgagor' is sought to be defined in the light of the general law applicable to mortgages, the term 'mortgagor' would include in my view the holder of the equity of redemption. In the law of property a transferee unless there is anything in a particular statute to cut down the right, is placed in the same position as a transferor. There seems no reason, when considering S. 14 (2) (a) of the ZA and LR Act, to place the owner of the equity of redemption on a footing different to the transferor of the equity, namely, the mortgagor. There seems no reason, when considering S. 14 (2) (a) of the ZA and LR Act, to place the owner of the equity of redemption on a footing different to the transferor of the equity, namely, the mortgagor. It is evident from S. 14 (2) (a) that a right merely personal to the person who was the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage is not intended to be created, because the right is given equally to his legal representative who would come into the inheritance subsequent to the date of the mortgage. But it is said that a legal representative is in a special position because he is an heir and the mortgagor so to say lives through him. The point, however, is that the legal representative is a person different to the mortgagor and he gets the right which the mortgagor had even though on the date of the mort gage he himself was not cultivating. 6. The contention that was advanced before me was that the scheme of the ZA and LR Act and the principle behind S. 14 was to assure, so far as possible the continuance of possession to those who were tilling the soil on the date of the vesting and it is said that no interpretation should be given which will destroy the general principle behind the Act and that inasmuch as the right to divest the mortgagee given by S. 14(2)(a) has been conferred merely on the mortgagor or his legal representative, the right should be confined to these persons and the right should not be extended to others. But in my view by giving the holder of the equity of redemption the same right as the mortgagor it would not be acting contrary to the principle behind the Act, because the right if the word 'mortgagor' includes the holder of the equity of redemption as I hold it does, has in fact been granted by S. 14(2)(a) itself. The way I view this matter is that inasmuch as the ZA and LR Act makes inroads upon pre-existing contractual rights, where it is permissible without straining the language of the relevant section to assure the continuity of that right, such an interpretation should be given. I must guard against my being misunderstood. The way I view this matter is that inasmuch as the ZA and LR Act makes inroads upon pre-existing contractual rights, where it is permissible without straining the language of the relevant section to assure the continuity of that right, such an interpretation should be given. I must guard against my being misunderstood. There is no power in any Court to legislate and one would not be entitled to strain the language of a section in order that an interpretation may be given which fits in with one's general concept of equity. But where it is a case of first impression and a term can be so interpreted so that persons who are otherwise lawfully entitled to a right will not be denied that right by means of such an interpretation, such an interpretation should naturally in my view, be given. Accordingly I hold that the court below was right in coming to the conclusion that the term 'mortgagor' used in S. 14 of the ZA and LR Act would include the holder of the equity of redemption. 7. The(sic) result therefore is that this appeal is dismissed with costs. 8. Learned Counsel states that inasmuch this appeal is an appeal from an order of remand, my permission is necessary to enable him to file a Special Appeal. If such permission is necessary it may be taken that it is granted.