JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — Defendant No.1 is the appellant before this Court against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur in Money Suit No.5 of 1979, where a decree has been passed for recovery of Rs. 13,500/- from the defendant No.2 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. 2. Suit was filed by respondent No.1 for realization of Rs. 13,500/- on the allegation that defendant and his wife joint¬ly executed usufructuary mortgage bond in favour of the plaintiff in respect of ‘A’ schedule property and incurred loan of Rs. 13,500/- from her on 10.1.73. After execution of the aforesaid mortgage bond the plaintiff was put in possession of the said property and she remained in possession thereof till, 1978. In the month of Ashadha, 1978, when the plaintiff sent her field servants to plough the disputed land, the field servants of defendant No.1 did not allow them to do so and consequently she was dispossessed from the said property from Ashadha, 1978, i.e., prior to completion of seven years from the date of mortgage and therefore filed the suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount. 3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement stating that the plaintiff was a money lender in regular course of business and on his request she had advanced the loan. He has stated in the written statement that the plaintiff was put in possession of the disputed property and was appropriating usufructs thereof but she was never dispossessed as alleged. According to the said defen¬dant the other two defendants having married in far of places never created any trouble in the possession of the plaintiff and by the time of alleged dispossession he was not in the village. It is further stated in the written statement that the plaintiff having remained in possession of the mortgaged property for more than seven years, it stood redeemed automatically by lapse of time. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement denying her knowledge about such mortgage in question. 4. Trial Court on the basis of such pleadings of the parties, framed four issues and issue Nos.1 and 2 relate to the question as to whether plaintiff was dispossessed in Ashadha, 1978 as alleged or remained in possession thereof for more than seven years, as a result of which the mortgage stood redeemed automatically by lapse of time. 4. Trial Court on the basis of such pleadings of the parties, framed four issues and issue Nos.1 and 2 relate to the question as to whether plaintiff was dispossessed in Ashadha, 1978 as alleged or remained in possession thereof for more than seven years, as a result of which the mortgage stood redeemed automatically by lapse of time. While answering these two issues, the trial Court specifically found that in Ashadha, 1978 the plaintiff had been dispossessed and having found so it further held that the plaintiff having been dispossessed prior to expiry of seven years from the date of mortgage, she is entitled to recovery of the loan amount of Rs.13,500/- and accordingly decreed the suit. 5. Shri S. S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1-appellant did not dispute that the plaintiff was put in possession of the disputed land after defendant No.1 ob¬tained loan of Rs.13,500/- from her and mortgaged the suit prop¬erty which was termed as usufructuary mortgage. However, Sri Rao challenges the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff was dispossessed in the month of Ashadha, 1978. Referring to the evidence he submitted that since 1974 the defendant No.1 was in jail on allegation that he had committed murder of his wife and admittedly during Ashadha, 1978 he was in jail and therefore there is no question of dispossessing the plaintiff when the defendant No.1 himself was in jail. He further submitted that admittedly the defendant No.1 was released on bail in April,1979 and therefore allegation of the plaintiff that she was dispos¬sessed in Ashadha, 1978 can never be believed. Referring to the evidence of D.W.1 he further contended that evidence is very clear to show that the defendant No.1 did not have any field servant at the relevant point of time and therefore allegation of the plaintiff that she was dispossessed by the field servant of defendant No.1 cannot be believed. According to Sri S.S. Rao, the plaintiff having remained in possession of the disputed property for more than seven years, the mortgage stood redeemed and no decree could have been passed by the trial Court for recovery of Rs. 13,500/- which had been taken as loan from the plaintiff. According to Sri S.S. Rao, the plaintiff having remained in possession of the disputed property for more than seven years, the mortgage stood redeemed and no decree could have been passed by the trial Court for recovery of Rs. 13,500/- which had been taken as loan from the plaintiff. Sri C.A. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the defendants contended that even though the defendant No.1 was in jail during the relevant time, under his instruction his field servant dispossessed the plaintiff and the same having been proved in evidence, the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiff was dispossessed prior to expiry of seven years from the date of mortgage. 6. Keeping in mind the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties as stated above, I proceed to examine the evidence of witnesses. Plaintiff (P.W.1) in her examination-in-chief stated that after execution of the mortgage deed on 10.1.73 she remained in possession of the disputed property till 1977. In Ashadha, 1978 on a Sunday when her field servant was ploughing the land, field servants of defendant No.1 came and unyoked the plough. The field servant of the plaintiff came and reported to her and since then she was dispossessed from the land. Of course she has admitted in cross-examination that she did not report this fact before the police station. P.W.2 is the husband of the plaintiff who has also stated in his evidence that field servants of defendant No.1 in Ashadha, 1978 did not allow the field servants of the plaintiff to plough the field. This witness in cross-examination has also admitted that the matter was not reported to the police or the Panchayat. P.W.3 in his evidence has stated about execution of the mortgage deed. His evidence is not very much relevant about dispossession of the plaintiff in Ashadha, 1978. P.W.4 has specifically stated that he was working as Guti under the plaintiff and at the relevant time the field servants of defendant No.1, namely Badhei Mulia and Sankar asked not to plough the field as instructed by their master and since then the plaintiff is not possessing the suit land. On perusal of the cross-examination, I do not find anything which will render evidence of these witnesses unacceptable. Evi¬dence of P.W.5 is also same as that of P.W.4 and nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve him. On perusal of the cross-examination, I do not find anything which will render evidence of these witnesses unacceptable. Evi¬dence of P.W.5 is also same as that of P.W.4 and nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve him. On the other hand, defendant No.1 who examined himself as D.W.1 admitted in cross-examination that after being released on bail he stayed in the village for a year and was cultivating lands through tenants. On analysis of the above evidence, I do not find any reason to take a different view than that of the trial Court with regard to dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit land. 7. As admitted by the plaintiff she remained in possession of the suit land from the date of execution of the mortgage i.e. from 10.1.1973 till the month of Ashadha, 1978 for more than five years. In this connection, decision of this Court reported in Vol.68 (1989) CLT 713 (Ahalya Devi-v-Kumar Rout and Others) may be referred to. This Court observed as follows : “Next question for consideration is whether by loss of char¬acter of possessory mortgage, plaintiff gets the right to recover the entire loan amount. Provision under Section 17 of the Act is a protective legislation for the benefit of the debtors. Legisla¬ture in its wisdom decided that possession for seven years by the mortgagee would have the effect of discharge of the mortgage. Thus, annual yield for seven years received or receivable by the mortgagee with possession of the land was provided to be suffi¬cient to discharge the loan with interest. On this basis for any misconduct of the debtor if the mortgagee suffers there may be penal consequences or a suit for damages may lie if the facts so disclose. Under the Act, there being no prohibition with penalty for violation thereof, Section 17 cannot be interpreted to be penal in character. Accordingly, the finding of fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the mortgaged land for six years, there would be proportionate reduction of the debt. In absence of any other provision in the Act, it will be deemed that 6/7th debt with interest has been discharged. Balance 1/7th debt with interest is to be paid by the mortgagor. Thus comes to Rs. In absence of any other provision in the Act, it will be deemed that 6/7th debt with interest has been discharged. Balance 1/7th debt with interest is to be paid by the mortgagor. Thus comes to Rs. 231/-.” In my view, the observations made by this Court as stated above, has full application to the facts of the present case, I, therefore, allow the appeal to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover loan amount to the extent she could not use the disputed property or enjoy usufructs thereof. Having remained in possession for more than five years, the plaintiff at best can claim recovery for the balance period during which she could not remain in possession. Judgment and decree of the trial Court is accordingly modified and it is directed that the plain¬tiff shall be entitled to recover 2/7th of Rs.13,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree of the trial Court till realisation. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.