Judgment :- 1. The second defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner and the claim had been filed for enforcing a hypothecation bond. Admittedly part of the mortgage security was with usufructuary mortgagee, who was not impleaded as a party. The claim was decreed and the properties were sold in execution proceedings, which were purchased by the decree-holder. It is common ground that no steps had been taken to obtain order under 0.21 R.96, C.P.C. for the symbolical possession of the properties usufrucutarily mortgaged and in such circumstances the judgment-debtor has applied for getting the benefit of S.22 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act 31 of 1958 hereafter referred to as the Act. The relevant part of the section reads as follows: "Sales of immovable property to be set aside in certain cases. The relevant part of the section reads as follows: "Sales of immovable property to be set aside in certain cases. - (1) Where any immovable property in which an agriculturist had an interest has been foreclosed, or sold, either in execution of any decree or under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force, for the recovery of a debt due to a creditor or to a banking company, as defined in the Banking Companies Act, 1949, in liquidation (i) on or after 1st November, 1956, or (ii) before 1st November; 1956, but the possession of the said property has not actually passed before 20th November 1957, from the judgment debtor to the purchaser, then notwithstanding anything in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or in the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force, and notwithstanding that the sale has been confirmed such judgment-debtor, may (a) in the case of - a sale where the purchaser is the decree-holder, deposit one half of the purchase money together with the costs of execution, where such costs were not included in the purchase money, and apply to the Court within six months of the commencement of this Act to set aside the sale of the property and the Court shall, if satisfied that the applicant is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of this Act, order the sale to be set aside and the Court shall further order that the balance of the purchase money shall be paid in ten equal half-yearly instalments together with the interest accrued due on such balance outstanding till the date of payment of each instalment at five per cent per annum, the first instalment being payable within a period of six months from the date of the order of the Court; and (b) in other cases, deposit the purchase money as respects sales, or the mortgage amount including interest and costs as respects foreclosures, and apply to the Court within six months of the commencement of this Act to set aside the sale or foreclosure of the property, and the Court shall, if satisfied that the applicant is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of this Act, order the sale or foreclosure to be set aside: Provided that no such order shall be made without notice to the decree-holder, the auction purchaser, and other persons interested in such sale or foreclosure and without affording them an opportunity to be heard in the matter: Provided further that where improvements have been effected on the properly sold after the date of the sale or foreclosure and before the notice under the first proviso, the value of such improvements as determined by the court shall be deposited by the debtor for payment to the auction purchaser: Provided further that this sub-section shall not affect the rights of bona fide alieness of the purchaser deriving rights before 20th November 1957." The lower court has rejected the prayer on the ground that the section was not applicable, and the question arising for adjudication is whether the decision is right. Admittedly the decree in the case is earlier to November 1956, and the symbolical possession has not passed under 0.21 R.96, C.P.C. It is argued that the judgment-debtor is not entitled to the benefit of S.22 (1) (ii) of the Act, which has been invoked, because the equity of redemption not being a possessory right there is no property, whose possession still remains with the judgment-debtor to justify the judgment-debtor claiming under the provision. Chacko v. John 1960 KLT. 485 is against the aforesaid argument, because the word "possession" has been held there to mean not only physical possession. It follows that in as much as the symbolical possession in the case had not been delivered under 0.21 R.96 C.P.C. the judgment-debtor would be entitled to maintain that such possession of the properties being still with him the requirement is satisfied and he becomes entitled to the benefit. In these circumstances there is force in the revision petitioner's argument and the court has erred through legal error not to exercise jurisdiction. The petition is allowed and the court below is directed to proceed afresh and determine whether the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the benefit under S.22 of the Act. The C.M.P. No. 216/60 is dismissed. Allowed.