JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgement and decree dated 13-12-1971 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, dismissing the appeal the upholding the judgement and decree by the learned trial Court dated 6-4-1970 in a suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts of the case are that three plots were mortgaged by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant-respondents by a registered mortgage-deed dated 19-4-1943, According to the plaintiff, he repaid the debt and obtained the possession but Farzi entries in favour of the defendant continued and later on the defendant became sirdari, so the plaintiff sought a declaration of his rights. Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff had not regained the possession of the land in suit. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who alone was present and none for the respondent was present inspite of due notice. I have also perused the record. 4. The only point pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned lower appellate Court and the learned trial Court too, took an incorrect view of the legal position in the matter, by holding that the defendant had become sirdar of the land in suit. It has been argued by him that this being a case of mortgage, prior to the date of vesting, the defendant's possession was permissive and it continued to be so thereafter. He cited rulings reported, in 1968 ALJ 101 and 1979 ALR 287. It was held in Radhey Shyam v. Ram 1969 A.L.J. 1095 that:- "Undoubtedly a change in the nature of legal rights of the bhumidhar and his mortgage was brought about by the act but it could not have the effect of converting the permissive possession of the mortgagee into adverse possession.' The law is no doubt clear that a permissive possession continuing since before vesting will not be converted into an adverse possession and the mortgagor can regain the possession according to law. However, these rulings are not applicable in the instant case and there is a distinction. It is not the mortgage-deed but the lease dated 14-9-1943 which was applicable from this date. However, these rulings are not applicable in the instant case and there is a distinction. It is not the mortgage-deed but the lease dated 14-9-1943 which was applicable from this date. It is in evidence that exhibit D-1 a patta was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant for the years 1351-F to 1355-F, on 14-9-1943. Thus, the effect of the mortgage-deed exhibit P-4 in respect of the permissive possession cannot be said to continue beyond 14-9-1943. It is the consistent finding of both the Courts below that the defendant No. I did not give up possession of the land in suit even after the expiry of the patta, was recorded occupant in 1356-F and 1359 F., became Adhivasi and subsequently sirdar of the land in dispute. Thus he acquired these rights by the process of law. In view of the above position, the plaintiff cannot claim his rights on the basis of permissive possession of the defendant. I see no reason to interfere with the judgement and decree of the Courts below and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. In consequence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.