Judgment J. N. Dubey, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2nd November 1992 of the respondent no.1, the Commissioner, Bhagalpur division, Bhagalpur. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he mortgaged the properly in dispute in favour of respondent No.4 on 14.12.1976. Although he had mortgaged the property in favour of respondent no.4, the husband of respondent No.4 taking advantage of his illiteracy incorporated a clause to the effect that in the event of his failure to repay the entire amount by 1st Jeth 1386 Fasli this deed will be treated as a sale deed. It was further claimed that admittedly he received only a sum of Rs.2000/- from the respondent for one bigha land while the market value of the property was Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per bigha and, therefore, the question of his selling the property did not arise. In view of Section 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders act, 1974 he became entitled to regain possession of the property in dispute on expiry of seven years period on 12.10.1983 but the respondent No.4 did not hand over possession of the property to him and, therefore, he sent a notice to the respondent No.4 for handing over possession but with no result. He, accordingly moved an application under section 12 to the respondent No.2, the land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar bhagalpur for recovery of possession of the property. The respondent No.4 contested the application on the ground that in view of the fact that it was not usufructuary mortgage Sec.12 was not attracted. In other words, according to her it was a case of mortgage by conditional sale which was not covered by section 12. The respondent No.2 vide his order dated 3.12.1990 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that as it was not an usufructuary mortgage provisions of Sec.12 were not attracted. The petitioner filed revision to the respondent No.1 which was dismissed on 2.11.1992. Hence this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the deed executed by the petitioner was a mortgage in which the respondent No.4 was put into possession of the property in dispute and, therefore, it was clearly covered by Sec.12. Hence this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the deed executed by the petitioner was a mortgage in which the respondent No.4 was put into possession of the property in dispute and, therefore, it was clearly covered by Sec.12. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel, Sec.12 of the Act is quoted below:- "usufructuary mortgages and their redemption.- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained of in any law or anything having the force of law or in any agreement, the principal amount and all dues in respect of an usufructuary mortgage relating to any agricultural land, whether executed before or after the commencement of this Act. Shall be deemed to have been fully satisfied and the mortgage shall be deemed to have been wholly redeemed on expiry of a period of seven years from the date of the execution of the mortgage bond in respect of such land and the mortgagor shall be entitled to recover possession of the mortgaged land in the manner prescribed under the rules: provided that if the mortgage bond had been executed before the commencement of this Act nothing in this Section shall entitle the mortgagor to claim any accounts or profits from the mortgagee by the reason of the benefit of redemption of the mortgage under this provision. Explantion-Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer a right of effecting usufructuary mortgage of land on persons who do not possess transferable rights in such land. " 5. A plain reading of Sec.12 would show that it covers the case of usufructuary mortgage. Usufructuary mortgage has not been defined in the act and the definition thereof has also not been borrowed from any other enactment such as Transfer of Property act. This being so, the definition of usufructuary mortgage contained under section 58 (d) of Transfer of property act cannot be imported in this case. The words usufructuary mortgage have to be given ordinary dictionary meanings. There is no controversy about the meaning of the word mortgage. Now it has to be seen what meaning has to be assigned to the word usufructuary. According to shorter Oxford English Dictionary, word usufructuary means one who enjoys the usufruct of a property, etc. The words usufructuary mortgage have to be given ordinary dictionary meanings. There is no controversy about the meaning of the word mortgage. Now it has to be seen what meaning has to be assigned to the word usufructuary. According to shorter Oxford English Dictionary, word usufructuary means one who enjoys the usufruct of a property, etc. usufruct means the right of temporary possession, use, or enjoyment of the advantages of property belonging to another, so far as may be had without causing damage or prejudice to it. Thus, usufructuary mortgage according to the common dictionary meaning is a type of mortgage where the mortgagee is put into possession of the mortgaged property. 6. In my opinion Sec.12 will apply to all cases of mortgages where the creditors are put in possession for appropriating the income of the property in lieu of the debt. My this view finds support from a Division Bench decision of this court in Kapildeo Narain Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1984 P. L. J. R.846, in which this Court has held as under:- "asserting in favour of the petitioner that in view of the statement in relation to payment of debt made by the mortgagors, the resultant transactions were not usufructuary mortgages within the meaning of the transfer of property still it is not possible to exclude the application of Section 12 to them. The Money Lenders Act does not state that a usufructuary mortgage shall:be given the same meaning as in the Transfer of Property Act nor does it define the expression in any other manner. The meaning of the word usufruct from which the expression usufructuary mortgage has been derived is stated in the Random House Dictionary thus : The right of enjoying all the advantage derivable from the use of something which belong to another as far as is compatible with the substance of the thing not being destroyed or injured the Shorter oxford English Dictionary also has given a similar meaning. The question arises as to in which sense the Money Lenders Act has used the expression in Sec.12. The question arises as to in which sense the Money Lenders Act has used the expression in Sec.12. By enacting the Section, the legislature has assumed that a creditor in possession of a mortgaged property repays himself the loan along with interest calculated on a reasonable rate by remaining in possession for seven years, and it is therefore unjust and inequitable to deprive the debtor the possession of the mortgaged property after this period. This aspect applies with same force to a case of usufructuary mortgage strictly construed in accordance with the Transfer of Property act and another mortgage where the creditor is in possession of the mortgaged property. A recital stating the liability of the debtor for payment of the loan to the creditor does not put the creditor under any disadvantage and does not suggest any ground for differentiating the case from a usufructuary mortgage within the strict terms of the Transfer of Property Act. The object of the section covers the two classes of cases in the same manner and if the section is interpreted, as suggested on behalf of petitioner, it may be rendered ultra vires on the ground of illegal discrimination. It is well established that in such a case, the Statute must be interpreted, if that is permissible by its language in a manner which will uphold its validity. I therefore hold that Sec.12 shall apply to all casas of mortgages where the creditors are put in possession for appropriating the income of the property in lieu of the debt. " 7. The impugned orders suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record and are liable to be quashed. 8. In the result the order dated 2nd november 1992 and 3rd December 1990 passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively are quashed and the respondent No.2, the Land Reforms deputy Collector, is directed to take immediate steps to put the petitioner in possession of the property in dispute. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.