JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member. - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20-5-82 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, arising out of order dated 28-8-78 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kasganj, district Etah, in a suit under Section 202 of U.P. Act I of 1951. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Christine Gardener and others had filed a suit with the allegations that ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 were owners and in possession of plots no. 1692 (1-83) and 1693 (0-71) which were their grove ; that ancestors of the plaintiffs executed a mortgage deed in favour of ancestors of defendant no. 1 on 18-4-73 for an amount of Rs. 500/-; that consolidation operations took place in the village and it was decided on 25-10-66 that the grove belonged to the plaintiffs and the defendants second set, and defendant no. 1 was only an Asami of the grove. The plaintiffs accordingly prayed for the ejectment of the defendant no. 1 and for delivery of possession to them. The suit was contested by Tilak Singh and others on the grounds that the plaintiffs had no right to file the suit; that defendants were in continuous adverse possession over the land. In suit from the time of their ancestors, and they had acquired sirdari rights. The suit was decreed by the trial court. An appeal was preferred against that order which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 20-5-82. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that no finding was given on the point of nature of land; that it was land under Section 21 (1) clause (d) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; that, consolidation proceedings had been completed and the suit was barred by time; that the amount of mortgage deed had not been deposited prior to the institution of the suit and in view of this the suit was not maintainable; that the interest had not been paid, that the mortgage deed was a fictitious and forged document, that the lower appellate court misread the statements of the parties and evidence on record, and that no notice for ejectment was given by the plaintiffs and defendants second set to defendant no. 1. 5. 1. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was a valid mortgage deed and that the amount due was deposited in the court; that the defendants were recorded as asamis during consolidation operations and hence there was no bar against filing of the suit under Section 202 of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on 1959 R.D. pp. 50-51, in which their Lordships have held that the very basis for bringing of a suit under section 202 (c) is that the mortgage had been satisfied or money had been deposited in Court by the mortgagee. This being the ground for the suit, the deposit has obviously to be made before the suit is brought. 7. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondents cites 1963 R.D. p. 37, in which his Lordship held that the satisfaction of mortgage money is not a pre-requisite of the filing of the suit. It is only a pre-requisite to the ejectment of the defendant because Section 202 (c) lays down that an asami shall be liable to ejectment on the ground that the mortgage money has been satisfied or the amount has been deposited in the court. Regarding issue of notice, the learned counsel for the respondents refers to V. Dhanpal Chettiar v. Yesedai Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745 . On that basis be submits that no notice for determining the tenancy sights of an asami is necessary before the filing of the suit under section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The learned counsel for the appellants relying on the ruling reported in 1982 R.D. 167, submits that notice was necessary to be given before the suit for ejectment of tenancy asami was filed. 8. I would like first to go into the question whether a notice for termination of tenancy of Asami rights is necessary before filing a suit under Section 202. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that no such notice was necessary before filing of the suit for ejectment. The decision taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts and I find no legal justification in not adhering to the view expressed by their Lordships, in the case AIR 1979 SC 1943 (supra). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that no such notice was necessary before filing of the suit for ejectment. The decision taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts and I find no legal justification in not adhering to the view expressed by their Lordships, in the case AIR 1979 SC 1943 (supra). The view expressed by the Full Bench of the High Court cannot have precedence over the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and I an inclined to accept the view taken in AIR 1979 SC 1745 . I am not inclined to accept the view expressed by Sri I.B. Singh, a learned Member. By giving a notice for termination of asami lights, it does not put an end to the dispute. When a suit has been filed under Section 202 of Act I of 1951, that itself is sufficient for eviction of the Asami. Section 200 of Act I of 1951 provides the mode of eviction of an asami. The said Section reads : 'No asami shall be liable to ejectment from his holding except as provided in this Act.' The procedure for ejectment of asami has been provided in Section 202, which reads as under :- 202. - Procedure for ejectment of asami - 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 - (a).... (b) that he (i) belongs to any of the classes mentioned in Cls. (b) that he (i) belongs to any of the classes mentioned in Cls. (a), (b), (c), (e), (g) or (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, or sub-section (2) of the said section, or in Clause (c) or (d) of Section 133, or (ii) has acquired the rights of an asami under the Uttar Pradesh Land Reforms Supplementary Act, 1952, and that he holds the land from year to year or a period which has expired or will expire before the end of the current agricultural year ; (c) that he belongs to the class mentioned in Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 and the mortgage has been satisfied, or the amount owing under the mortgage, whether or not it has become payable thereunder, been deposited in court, (d) that he is an asami under Section 11 and the right to maintenance allowance does not any longer subsist. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show me any provisions in U. P. Act no. I of 1951 under which a notice prior to the filing of the suit under Section 202 was necessary. In view of this, I am of the view that no notice was necessary prior to the institution of the suit under Section 202 of U.P. Act I of 1951. 9. The decision reported in 1959 R.D. 50-51, stands on a different footing. In that case, the suit was filed and the mortgage money was not deposited in the court, meaning thereby that the mortgage had not been satisfied, and a conditional decree for ejectment was passed that when the mortgagor paid the mortgage money, the a ami shall stand evicted. Their Lordships were the view that in such a situation the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Addl. Commissioner were found unjustified. In the instant case, the mortgage money had been deposited in the court. From the reading of Clause (c) of Section 202, as quoted above, it is clear that a suit under Section 202 can be filed only when the mortgage money has been satisfied or the amount owing under the mortgage, whether it has become payable thereunder or not, has been deposited in court. From the reading of Clause (c) of Section 202, as quoted above, it is clear that a suit under Section 202 can be filed only when the mortgage money has been satisfied or the amount owing under the mortgage, whether it has become payable thereunder or not, has been deposited in court. This sub-clause provides two alternatives, firstly, mat the suit could be filed only after the mortgage money has been satisfied, and secondly, that the amount owing under the mortgage should have been deposited. In court. In the instant case, the mortgage money had been deposited in the court and hence I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. This view finds support from 1963 R.D. p. 37 in which his Lordship of the Allahabad High Court has held that the satisfaction of mortgage money is not a pre-requisite for filing of a suit under Section 202. 10. The trial court has given a finding of fact that the mortgage deed was a genuine document. There is no evidence on record to prove that the mortgage deed was not a genuine document. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the mortgage deed was fictitious and forged document does not find support from-the evidence on record. The decision of the consolidation courts became final and the defendants could not be held to be sirdar or bhumidhar of the land in suit. The learned counsel for appellants submits that the courts below have not given a finding whether the land fall under Section 21 (1) (d). This reads as under :- "21 (1) - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting occupied or held land as - (d) a mortgagee in actual possession from a person belonging to any of the classes mentioned in Cls. (b) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 or Cls. (i), (viii) and (ix) of Section 19, "shall be deemed to be an asami thereof." Sub-clause (e) of Section 18 (1) provides that all land held by grove-holder shall be deemed to be settled with the grove holder, and he will be entitled to take or retain possession as bhumidhar thereof. From the mortgage deed it is apparent that the mortgage related to grove and, hence, the plaintiffs were bhumidhars of he land. From the mortgage deed it is apparent that the mortgage related to grove and, hence, the plaintiffs were bhumidhars of he land. In view of this, the defendant no. 1 was asami of the plaintiffs and defendants second set I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned lower appellate court. 11. This second appeal is accordingly dismissed.