JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a defendant's second appeal against judgment and decree dated 28.6.1974 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, allowing appeal no. 2490 of 1971 Sultanpur decreeing plaintiff's suit for ejectment of defendant subject to deposit of mortgage money against judgment and decree dated 15-2-1974 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class District Sultanpur dismissing plaintiff's suit under Section 202 (c) of Act I of 1951. 2. Plaintiff-respondent Rampal filed the suit under Section 202/209 of Act I of 1951 alleging that he was grove holder/bhumidhars of the disputed land and was held so during the consolidation by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that the defendant was declared to be mortgage/asami in possession; that the mortgage money has been satisfied by the usufruct of the land in suit that the Mortgage money is Rs. 100/- if it found not to have been satisfied be ready to pay or deposit it. 3. The suit was contested by defendant-appellant with the allegations that the land in suit was never mortgaged and he had not been in possession as a mortgagee and the plaintiff was not bhumidhar; that the mortgage money has not been satisfied and as it has deposited before filing the suit, the suit is not maintainable; that he is not its asami and is sirdar in possession and he is not liable to ejectment. 4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the judgment and decree of the first appellate court are liable to be set aside and that of the trial court to be confirmed as mortgage money has not been deposited which is condition precedent to the filing of the suit according to Section 202 (9c) of the Act I of 1951 that the plaintiff had stated that he was in possession and the defendant was not in possession and the defendant was not in possession therefore the suit under Section 202(c) is not maintainable. It was also argued that the land in suit was not grove and the defendant was not asami. Reliance has been placed on Chandra Shekhar Singh v. Panch Narain, 1963 R.D. 182; Surajpati v. Dharamdei, 1959 R.D. 39. 6. It was also argued that the land in suit was not grove and the defendant was not asami. Reliance has been placed on Chandra Shekhar Singh v. Panch Narain, 1963 R.D. 182; Surajpati v. Dharamdei, 1959 R.D. 39. 6. In reply it was argued that concurrent findings of both the courts below and the matter having been decided by the consolidation courts that the plaintiff was bhumidhar and the defendant was mortgage/asami cannot be interfered with in second appeal and that conditional decree cannot be passed as has been held by the first appellate court. Reliance has been placed upon Ram Murti Pathak v. Jokhan, 1970 R.D. 234; Mahadeo Singh v. Sunder Kewat, 1963 R.D. 37 the concurrent findings of both the courts below together with the fact that the consolidation authorities also decided that the plaintiff is bhumidhari of the disputed land. The defendant is mortgage/asami in possession of the disputed land and was so not the date of vesting and that the mortgage money has not been satisfied by usufruct and that the amount of mortgage money Rs. 100/- due and was not deposited before filing of the suit cannot be interfere with and are hereby confirmed. 7. The main question for determination is whether mortgage money should be deposited before filing the suit or a conditional decree for its deposit can be passed and ejectment can be obtained when that money is deposited. 8. Section 202 of Act I of 1951 lays down procedure for ejectment of asmais; that without prejudice to the provisions of Section 338 an asami shall be liable to ejectment from his holding on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the land holder as the case may be, on the ground or grounds.......... "(c) that he belongs to the class mentioned in Cl. (d) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 21 and the mortgage has been satisfied or the amount owing under the mortgage has whether or not it has become payable thereunder been deposited in court." 9. In 1970 R.D. page 234. (Supra), it has been held that if the court comes to the conclusion that only part of the money due has been deposited or that mortgage has not been satisfied fully a conditional decree can be passed and the suit is not barred for want of depositing the whole mortgage money due. In 1970 R.D. page 234. (Supra), it has been held that if the court comes to the conclusion that only part of the money due has been deposited or that mortgage has not been satisfied fully a conditional decree can be passed and the suit is not barred for want of depositing the whole mortgage money due. In 1963 R.D. page 37 it was held that satisfaction of mortgage money was not pre-requisite of filing the suit under Section 202 of Act I of 1951 the suit is that case was filed prior to the coming of the Act I of 1951 in force and the suit was pending in the Civil Court prior to the amendment of 1953 and 1956 therefore, in that case mortgage amount due could not have been deposited before filing the suit because when that suit was filed Act I of 1951 itself was not in existence which is not the case at present hence that ruling is not applicable to the present case in 1959 R.D. page 39 the suit was dismissed as the mortgage money was not deposited. Inter alia it was also held that a suit for redemption of anomalous mortgage does not lie in the revenue court. 10. For depositing the mortgage money the word has been used deposited in court' which shows that depositing of mortgage amount is a condition precedent to the filing of the suit under Section 202(c) of Act I of 1951 which denotes past tense to the filing of the suit therefore normally a conditional decree cannot be passed. There may be cases where there may be a dispute about actual mortgaged amount and whether it has been satisfied or not in such cases if plaintiff has deposited a certain amount that the amount deposited was due then only conditional decree can be passed. In cases where it is found that whole mortgage money has not been satisfied and some amount is found still due, in such cases also conditional decree can be passed but not otherwise. In cases where it is found that whole mortgage money has not been satisfied and some amount is found still due, in such cases also conditional decree can be passed but not otherwise. When there is a specific amount as mortgage money and its known to the plaintiff but he fails to deposit that amount before filing the suit, in such cases constitutional decree cannot be passed because if the matter is left to the whims of the plaintiffs the condition precedent of depositing the mortgage amount as provided in subsection (c) of Section 202 of Act I of 1951 most probably shall never be complied with. 11. In the present case the mortgage money being Rs. 100/- was known to be plaintiff from very beginning but he did not comply the condition precedent of depositing before filing of the suit. Therefore, in view of the above conditional decree cannot be passed and the judgment and decree of the first appellant court cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside and this appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. In cases where condition precedent of depositing the mortgage amount has not been fulfilled before filing the suit the proper course would be to reject the plaint under order 7 rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. and not to dismiss the suit therefore the judgment and decree of the trial court also cannot be confirmed. 13. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed with costs althrough and the judgment and decree of both the courts below are hereby set aside and the plaint is rejected.