JUDGMENT : J.C. Shah, J. In July 1943 Sahi Ram, father of the respondents in this appeal, mortgaged with possession an area of agricultural land in village Dhobi, District Hissar, to secure repayment of Rs. 6,000/-. Lachman Singh the mortgagee inducted the appellants on the lands as his tenants-at-will. After the death of Sahi Ram the respondents redeemed the mortgage on September 1, 1958, and filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Class, Hissar, for possession of the land against the appellants. The suit was decreed, and the decree was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Hissar. The appellants then applied to purchase the land in exercise of the right under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953). The Assistant Collector rejected the application. In appeal, the Collector of Hissar reversed that order. The order was confirmed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division. 2. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution moved by the respondents, the High Court of Punjab quashed the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. In the view of the High Court the judgment of the Civil Court was binding between the parties and the appellants could not maintain an application to enforce the right under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. An appeal under the Letters Patent against that order was dismissed in limine. 3. Under the general law, a person cannot ordinarily transfer or otherwise confer a better title upon another, than he himself has, and a mortgagee therefore cannot create an interest in the mortgaged property which will enure beyond the termination of his interest as mortgagee. A mortgagee cannot during the subsistence of the mortgage act in a manner detrimental to the mortgagor's interests e.g. by giving a lease which may enable the tenant to acquire permanent occupancy rights in the land, thereby defeating the mortgagor's right to possession : Mahabir Gope and others v. Harbans Narain Singh and others (1952 S.C.R. 775). This decision was approved in Harihar Prasad Singh and another v. Deonarain Parsad and others (1956 S.C.R. 1). But in Asa Ram and another v. Mst. This decision was approved in Harihar Prasad Singh and another v. Deonarain Parsad and others (1956 S.C.R. 1). But in Asa Ram and another v. Mst. Ram Kali and another (1958 S.C.R. 986), it was pointed out that under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agricultural lease created by a mortgagee may be binding on the mortgagor even though the mortgage has been redeemed, provided the lease is of such a character that a prudent owner of property would enter into in the usual course of management. 4. In Prabhu v. Ramdeo and others (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1721), this Court held that the rule that the lease granted by a mortgagee in possession comes to an end on redemption, is subject to certain exceptions. A settlement by a mortgagee in possession with a tenant in the course of prudent management, and the rights arising in favour of a tenant of the mortgagee by statute, based on the nature of the land and possession for the requisite period, may give rise to rights enforceable against the mortgagor after redemption. The Court pointed out that the rights of a tenant inducted by a mortgagee upon land may conceivably be improved by virtue of statutory provisions which may meanwhile have come into operation. 5. Ordinarily, therefore, a tenant inducted in the land by the mortgagee during the subsistence of the mortgage has on redemption of the mortgage, no right to claim to remain in occupation of the land mortgaged, but he may seek to enforce that right if the tenancy is granted by the mortgagee in the ordinary course of management, or pursuant to an express covenant in that behalf, or when by legislation rights are conferred upon such a tenant enforceable against the mortgagor. It was not urged before the High Court that the tenancy rights were granted in pursuance of authority under a covenant in the deed of mortgage or in due course of management by the mortgagee. 6. Counsel for the appellants contended, relying upon certain provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, that the appellants obtained tenancy rights in land which were enforceable against the mortgagors on redemption of the mortgage. The provisions relied upon may briefly be referred to. 6. Counsel for the appellants contended, relying upon certain provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, that the appellants obtained tenancy rights in land which were enforceable against the mortgagors on redemption of the mortgage. The provisions relied upon may briefly be referred to. Section 2(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, defines "landowner" as meaning, amongst others, "a person defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act XVII of 1887)". The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, defines "landowner" in Section 3(2) as not including "a tenant or an assignee of land-revenue, but does include a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm, under this Act for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue, or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear and every other person not hereinbefore in this clause mentioned who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof, or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate". The expression "tenant" is defined in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, as having the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1887), and includes a sub-tenant and self-cultivating lessee, but shall not include a present holder, as defined in Section 2 of the Resettlement Act. Under the Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), by Section 4(5) a "tenant" is defined as meaning a person who holds land under another person, and is, or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent for that land to that other person. The definition then seeks to exclude certain classes of persons from the definition of "tenant". The definition then seeks to exclude certain classes of persons from the definition of "tenant". Section 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, provides :- "The continuity of the tenancy shall not be affected by :- (a) the death of the landlord, or (b) the death of tenant except when the tenant leaves no male lineal descendants or mother or widow, and (c) any change therein under the same landowner; and for the purposes of Sections 17 and 18 of this Act, such tenancy shall be the last area so held." By Section 9(1) it is enacted that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no landowner shall be competent to eject a tenant except in certain specified conditions which are not relevant in the present case. Counsel also invited our attention to Section 22 which provides that any dispute relating to rent payable by a tenant or any objection relating to the permissible area, not otherwise expressly provided for in the Act, shall be determined in a summary manner as provided for in Section 14-A. But none of these provisions have, in our judgment, any bearing on the present question. 7. The applicants seek to enforce the right to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and in order that the right may be exercised, they must show that they were, at the date of the application, "tenant". The non-obstante clause with which the Section opens is intended to emphasise that the right of a tenant to purchase the land is not defeated on account of the provisions contained in any other law, usage or contract prohibiting the tenants from acquiring the land. Where, however, a Civil Court has, in an action properly entertained, decided that the person who claims to exercise the right under Section 18 is not the tenant, he cannot ignore that decision and claim the right to purchase the land occupied by him. The appellants were found by the Civil Court to be trespassers and not tenants, and so long as that decision stands, they have no right to claim to purchase the land. 8. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the Civil Court was erroneous, but the question whether the judgment was erroneous is not open to be canvassed in this appeal. 8. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment of the Civil Court was erroneous, but the question whether the judgment was erroneous is not open to be canvassed in this appeal. The decision of the Civil Court is binding between the parties to this litigation. 9. It was also submitted that the Civil Court was incompetent to decide the suit filed by the respondents against the appellants in view of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Revenue Courts, and excludes the jurisdiction of all other Courts to take cognizance of the disputes or matters set out therein. But Section 77 of the Tenancy Act does not include a suit by an owner of land against the alleged trespassers. The provision (i) to Section 77(3) provides : "Where in a suit cognizable by and instituted in a Civil Court it becomes necessary to decide any matter which can under this sub-section be heard and determined only by a Revenue Court, Civil Court shall endorse upon the plaint the nature of the matter for decision and the particulars required by Order 7, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, and return the plaint for presentation to Collector." The matter in dispute in the civil suit did not fall to be determined by the Revenue Court. In the present case the suit was filed by the respondents to eject the appellants claiming to be landowners of the land. Such a suit was not a suit falling within the classes of suits described in that Section, and there is nothing to show that "any matter which can under" Section 77 "be heard and determined only by a Revenue Court" fell to be decided. Having record to the nature of the claim made, the proceedings in the suit, and the decision of the Civil Court, the judgment of the Civil Court cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 10. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.