Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 8,000/, being amount of three usufructuary mortgage deed dated 29.5.1973 executed by defendant no. 1 in his favour. Plaintiff claimed that defendant no. 1 took Rs. 8,000/- as accommodation loan from him and in lieu thereof executed three separate mortgage deeds on 29.5.1973. Although mortgages were usufructuary, but mortgagor did not allow the mortgagee to come in possession of the land in mortgage. Subsequently, mortgagee came to know that the land in mortgage also did not belong to the mortgagor. Hence, plaintiff was entitled to recover mortgage money together with interest from the date of execution of mortgage deeds. Hence, the suit. 2. Defendant no. 2 filed written statement stating, inter-alia, that plaintiff was unregistered professional money lender. He was put in possession over the lands in mortgage. He had not mortgaged lands of any other person. Excess area of any plot was not mortgaged. 3. Trial court dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff was a professional money lender. He did not file any money lenders licence. So the suit was barred under Section 4 of the Bihar Money lenders Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). From own evidence and admission of the plaintiff, it was manifest that after execution of the mortgage deeds, Exts, 1, 1/A and 1/B the plaintiff came in possession of the mortgaged lands, cultivated the same and was still continuing in possession. Hence, as an usufructuary mortgagee in possession, plaintiff was not entitled to sue for mortgage money. 4. Plaintiff filed Mortgage Appeal No. 64 of 1979, which has been allowed by impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.1985. Trial courts judgment and decree was set aside and the suit was decreed. 5. It was found that mortgages were created in favour of the plaintiff in May, 1973 and he was put in possession of only 2.70 acres land instead of 3.55 acres, which was total land under mortgage. So the plaintiff was not put in possession of entire mortgaged lands. It was also found that subsequently defendants started disturbing his possession and either forcibly or stealthly harvested the crops grown by him. So he was entitled to repudiate the mortgage and ask for mortgage money. So the plaintiff was not put in possession of entire mortgaged lands. It was also found that subsequently defendants started disturbing his possession and either forcibly or stealthly harvested the crops grown by him. So he was entitled to repudiate the mortgage and ask for mortgage money. Plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to receive interest on the mortgage money from the date of institution of the suit at the stipulated rate of 12% per annum. If the defendants failed to pay the same plaintiff was entitled to get the mortgaged lands or sufficient portion thereof sold for satisfaction of his mortgage dues. 6. The court of appeal below also held that plaintiff had not advanced the loan as professional money lender and the suit being for recovery of mortgage money was not hit by Section 8 of the Act. It was further held that suit was not instituted to avoid mischief of Section 12 of the Act as the plaintiff was not put in possession of the entire mortgaged land and thereafter his possession was also disturbed. 7. It appears that after the mortgages were created on 29.5.1973 in November-December, 1973 mortgagee filed Complaint Case against mortgagor under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for dishonestly mortgaging certain plots, which did not belong to him and for showing inflated area of plots in the mortgage deeds. Further after the mortgagor forcibly harvested the crops grown by him over part of the mortgaged land, which came in his possession, the mortgagee filed Complaint Case no. 999 of 1973. Another proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated. A proceeding under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code was also started against mortgagor and other members of his family. Mortgagees possession was disturbed by the mortgagor and his family members. 8. In the aforesaid circumstance, mortgagee was entitled to repudiate the entire mortgage and sue for the mortgage money. 9. I find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the court of appeal below. There is no merit in this Second Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.