JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - This is a Defendants second appeal arising out of a suit, Under Section 209 read with Section 14 of the UP ZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for possession of a cultivatory plot of land. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal by the Plaintiff the suit was decreed whereupon the Defendants filed this second appeal which was referred by one of us for decision of a Division Bench. This is how this appeal is before us. After hearing Learned Counsel for the Appellants we are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below does not call for interference and this appeal must, therefore, fail. 2. There is no controversy now that the plot in suit had been usufructuary mortgaged, on 16-9-1916, by one Tahal Singh. The mortgagee was one Khadag, Tamoli. The finding of the court below, which has not been challenged before us, is that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the sole heir of the mortgagor Tahal Singh. 3. Plaintiff's case was that the Defendant Appellants were the heirs of the mortgagee Khadag Tamoli. It was also pleaded, in the alternative, that if the assertion that the Defendants were the heirs of Khadag Tamoli was not established, the Defendants were, in any case, in possession as mortgagees by virtue of the fact that they were the heirs of their father Saral who was transferee of the mortgagee rights from Khadag Tamoli. 4. In defence Plaintiff's assertion that the Defendants were the heir of the mortgagee was denied. It was also denied that the Defendants father whose heirs the Defendants unquestionably are, was a transferee from the mortgagee Khadag Tamoli or that they were in possession as mortgagees. The case set forward by the Defendants was that they had been settled as tenants by the Zamindar and that no relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee subsisted between the parties to the suit. 5. The trial court decreed the suit but, on appeal by the Defendants, the decree was set aside by the appellate court and the suit was remanded back to the trial court where after the trial court, after complying with the directions of the appellate court, dismissed the suit. 5. The trial court decreed the suit but, on appeal by the Defendants, the decree was set aside by the appellate court and the suit was remanded back to the trial court where after the trial court, after complying with the directions of the appellate court, dismissed the suit. On appeal by the Plaintiff the appeal Judge recorded the findings that the plot in suit was the Sir and Khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage and that the Defendants were in possession as mortgagees on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. The learned Judge accordingly set aside the decree of the trial court and decreed the Plaintiff's claim. 6. At the hearing of this second appeal by one of us the contention raised on behalf of the Appellants was that in the absence of any document to establish the plea that the Defendants were the heirs of an assignee it was not open to the court below to record, on other evidence, the finding that the possession of the Defendants was that of mortgagees. The same contention has been repeated before us and, after hearing Learned Counsel for the Appellants, we are of the opinion that this contention cannot be accepted. 7. We would like to add, before proceeding to deal with this contention, that whereas the Plaintiff gave up in the court below his assertion that the Defendants were the heirs of the mortgagee, the Defendant-Appellants have not challenged in this second appeal the finding recorded by the court below that the Plaintiff was the heir of the original mortgagor and that the land in suit was, at the time of the mortgage in 1916, Sir and Khudkasht of the mortgagor. 8. The only contention raised is that in the absence of any document establishing assignment of the mortgagee rights by the original mortgagee in favour of the father of the Defendant-Appellants, it was not open to the court below to record the finding that the Defendants were in possession as mortgagees. 8. The only contention raised is that in the absence of any document establishing assignment of the mortgagee rights by the original mortgagee in favour of the father of the Defendant-Appellants, it was not open to the court below to record the finding that the Defendants were in possession as mortgagees. The provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act declare the law as being that a mortgagee in possession shall cease to have any right to hold or possess any land which is in his possession as mortgagee with effect from the date of vesting, provided certain other conditions, which have been found to be satisfied in the case before us, were fulfilled. As to these other conditions, there is no controversy now and, to our minds, the only question which arises for consideration is whether it could be held that the possession of the Defendants was that of mortgagees. The predecessor of the Plaintiff having put the original mortgagee Khadag Tamoli in possession as far back as 1916 will, ordinarily speaking, be unaware of how and when the mortgagee in possession puts third parties in possession, and we have no doubt that, in order to enable the Plaintiff suing Under Section 209 read with Section 14 of the Act to obtain a decree, all that he need establish is that he is the original mortgagor or his representative in interest, that the land in suit was the Sir and Khudkasht of the original mortgagor and, further, that the persons in possession are in possession as mortgagees and not in any other capacity. The mere circumstance, therefore, that the Plaintiff may not have been able to place before the court any document to evidence a transfer by the original mortgagee of his mortgagee rights in favour of the father of the Defendants would hardly detract from the Plaintiff's right to obtain a decree for possession so long as the Plaintiff succeeds in establishing that the possession of the Defendants is in the capacity of mortgagees, and not in any other capacity. It may very well be that in order to evidence assignment of mortgagee rights of property valued at Rs. It may very well be that in order to evidence assignment of mortgagee rights of property valued at Rs. 100/- or more a registered document in writing is necessary but that, by itself, will not prevent the Plaintiff from establishing that notwithstanding the fact that the transfer was not evidenced by any such document the nature of possession of the Defendants was that of mortgagees. 9. In support of the finding recorded by the court below that the possession of the Defendants was that of mortgagees there is ample evidence consisting not only of entries in the village records spreading over a number of years but also of conduct on the part of the Defendants themselves consistent only with the position that the possession of the Defendants was that mortgagees. We have, therefore, no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Judge that the Plaintiff succeeded in establishing, apart from other requirements the fact that the Defendants were in possession of the land in suit as mortgagees. The decree appealed against is, therefore, well sustained. 10. This appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs.