Judgment R.K.Choudhary, J. 1. This is an application under Sec.25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. Petitioners 1 and 2 executed two rehan deeds on the 28th May 1960, in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party for Rs. 1300.00 each. On the 8th March, 1961, they sold the ijara lands to one Ramlagan Singh for Rs. 3900.00 and out of the consideration money left in deposit a sum of Rs. 2600.00 with the purchaser to be paid to the rehandar. On the 8th of June 1961, Ram-lagan Singh deposited the mortgage money under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, and notice of the deposit was served on the opposite party. On the 12th July, 1961, the opposite party withdrew the money after giving a registered receipt (Ext. B), as required by Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter, on the 7th October, 1961, the opposite party filed a Small Cause Court suit against the petitioners, out of which the present applica-tion arises for compensation on the ground that he never got possession of the ijara lands during the continuance of the ijara. The plea taken in defence by the petitioners was that the opposite party was all along in possession. The learned Small Cause. Court Judge, however, found that the plaintiff was never given possession, and as such he was entitled to. compensation, and decreed the suit as claim-ed. Being thus aggrieved, the present application has been filed in this court. 2. Mr. Daso Sinha, appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the learned Small Cause Court Judge has not given any consideration to the statements made by the opposite party in the registered receipt Ext. B, and he has brushed it aside on a flimsy ground. In my opinion, there is much substance in this contention. Ext. B recites in clear terms that the opposite party was in possession of the ijara land from the date of the execution of tha two rehan deeds as a rehandar up to the date of the execution of document, and that nobody else was in possession thereof. It also recites that he withdrew his possession as rehandar from the ijara lands, and that he had no claim left as against the petitioners with respect to any matter concerning the rehan deeds or the money due under them, and undertook not to prefer any claim for the same. It also recites that he withdrew his possession as rehandar from the ijara lands, and that he had no claim left as against the petitioners with respect to any matter concerning the rehan deeds or the money due under them, and undertook not to prefer any claim for the same. On execution of this dccument, the opposite party was allowed to withdraw the money. This document has been disposed of by the learned Small Cause Court Judge sunvnarily as under : "28. Ext. B is the Registered Receipt executed by the plaintiff at the time of redemption. It has been admitted into evidence on admission. It appears that the plaintiff delivered possession of the land hypothecated to Ramlagan the vendee. 29. Firstly Ramlagan, the vendor, had deposited the mortgage money to the credit of the mortgagee in Court under Section 83 of the T. P. Act. Secondly the plaintiff mortgagee could not have withdrawn the amount without giving; a receipt, extinguishing the ijara. Lastly the plaintiff mortgagee would have been harassed by a suit had he refuse to do so. Ext. B, therefore, is of no avail to the defendants. This contention, therefore, lacks substance." In my opinion, the learned Small Cause Court Judge has not done full justice to the recitals made in this document, and the reasons that he has given not to give any value to these document themselves, in my opinion, disentitle the opposite party to put forward any claim on the rehan deeds in question. 3. Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act reads thus : "At any time after the principal money payable in respect of any mortgage has become due and before a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property is barred, the mortgagor, or any other person entitled to institute such suit, may deposit, in any Court in which he might have instituted such suit, to the account of the mortgagee, the amount remaining due on the mortgage. The Court shall thereupon cause written notice of the deposit to be served on the mortgagee, and the mortgagee may, on presenting a petition (verified in the manner, prescribed by law for the verification of plaints) stating the amount then due on the mortgage, and his willingness to accept the money so deposited in full discharge of such amount, and on depositing in the same Court the mortgage-deed and all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgage property apply for and receive the money,) " and the mortgage-deed and all such other documents so deposited shall be delivered to the mortgagor or such other person as aforesaid. Where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, the Court shall, before paying to him the amount so deposited, direct him to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor and at the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to the mortgagor or to such third person as the mortgagor may direct or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) have registered an acknowledgment in writing that any right in derogation of the mortgagors interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished." 4. In the case of the mortgagee in possession, the mortgagee, in order to be entitled to get the rehan money deposited under the above provision, has to give a register-ed acknowledgment in writing that any right in derogation of the mortgagors interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished. Unless he gives this undertaking, he is not entitled to withdraw the money. By Ext. B, the opposite party did give such an undertaking and took the benefit of that undertaking by withdrawing the money. He is, therefore, estopped from claiming any right arising out of the rehan deeds. 5. It was open to the plaintiff not to accept the money and to sue the defendants for the recovery of the mortgage money along with damages for the produce for his not being given possession of the mortgaged proper ties, but the plaintiff could not extinguish his rights under the mortgage for the purpose of withdrawing the money and at the same time put forward & claim for such rights against the terms of the undertaking. It is perfectly manifest from the provisions of Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act that if the mortgage had accepted the mortgage money, he has no further right to claim anything under the said morgage. The above view gains support from the observations made by a Bench of the Madras High Court in L.K. Minakshi Ayyar V/s. Janki R. Achalier, AIR 1942 Madras 592, in which it was observed as follows : "After the mortgagee accepts the tender under Section 83, T.P. Act, he is not entitled to claim any further relief as against the mortgagors or the deposit in full settlement of all his claim. If he is not prepared, to do it, then he ought to decline to accept the amount deposited....." 6. Apart from the question of estoppel, even on merits the plaintiff has got no case. The plaintiff has clearly cited in Ext. B that he was in possession fo the ijara lands from the date of the execution of the rehan deeds. In that statement which the learned Small Cause Court Judge was omitted to cnsider, ti is manifest that the plaintiff got possession over the ijara and after the execution of the reban deeds. The finding of the learned Judge that the plaintiff was not in possession is, therefore, wrong. Mr. Parmanand Saran Sinha, however, ha surged that this statement was made not because it was a fact that the plaintiff got possession over teh ijara land, but as he had to make such a statement in order to get the money. Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, however, does not require such statement to be made by the mortgagee in (sic) to receive the money. The only statemtn that it requires to be made in this regard is that the mortgage has given up his possession. It was not, therefore, necessary to recite in this document in order to get the money that the morgagee had been in possession from the date of the proceution of the rehan deeds. The above contenties put forward by learned counsel, therefore, cannot share. 7. The result, therefore, is that this application is allowed; the order of the learned Small Cause Court Judge is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with seats throughtout. hearing fee, Rs. 50/-.