N.G. Chandavarkar J.
1. The lands in dispute were Deshgat Inam held by plaintiffs' ancestors as Desais for service. Those ancestors mortgaged the Inam lands to the grand-father of defendant No. 3, with possession. Thereafter, that is, in 1856, ' the Inam lands were made Khalsa, i.e. declared forfeited by an order of Government communicated by the Mamlatdar (See Ext. 114) to the mortgagee who was in possession under the usufructuary mortgage. The mortgagee, however, after the forfeiture continued in possession and went on paying assessment in respect of the lands to Government. The plaintiffs, as mortgagors, brought the suit, which has led to this appeal, to redeem, and the action was resisted by the defendant upon the ground mainly that the order of forfeiture in 1856 deprived the plaintiffs of all right to the lands and that the title thereafter became vested in the defendant by reason of the fact that he (the defendant) was allowed by the Collector to continue in possession and pay the assessment.
2. Now, the question is whether the order of forfeiture in Ext. 114 had the legal effect of depriving the plaintiffs, who were then Desais, of all right and title to the lands, and of extinguishing the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee which existed between the plaintiffs and the defendant. It has been held by this Court in Vishnoo Trimbuck v. Tatia Pant (1863) 1 Bom. H.C.R. 22 and Gangabai v. Kalapa Dari Mukrya ILR (1885) 9 Bom. 419 that when an Inam land is resumed, the resumption has merely the effect of converting the land from a service tenure into land liable to pay assessment to Government. In Vishnoo Trimbuck v. Tatia Pant (1863) 1 Bom. H.C.R. 22, it was said by Sausse C. J. :-
The estate, then, which an inamdar, in occupation by himself or his creditors, has in the lands, is a right to bold them exempt from payment of land revenue during the period or upon the conditions; mentioned in the grant; and upon failure of either, a right to hold the lands to him and to his heirs so long as he or they shall pay the land revenue. This latter right is in the nature of a lease for ever rendering rent, and is clearly a valuable interest, which can be made the subject of mortgage or Bale by the party in possession.
3. Then in Gangabai v. Kalapa Dari Mukrya ILR (1885) 9 Bom. 419, it was said:-
When an Inam is resumed, the Inamdar's right exemption from the payment of the Government assessment ceases. He tnereafter becomes liable to pay such assessment; but all his other rights remain unaffected.
4. Therefore, defendant 3 who came into possession of this property as mortgagee of the plaintiffs, the original Desais, could not turn round after the order of forfeiture and take the benefit of it and challenge the validity of the mortgage in virtue of which his title to the land as mortgagee had begun. That title remained unaffected by the resumption of the Inam.
5. On these grounds the decree of the lower appellate Court must be confirmed with costs.