1. This appeal was argued before Banerji, J., on a point which need not now be considered by us. The reason is that on certain facts to be presently stated, the case can be decided on much simpler grounds, the result being the same at which this Court, in accordance with the Court of first appeal, arrived.
2. The facts briefly are these: Salig Ram made a simple mortgage of zamindari property, which included his interest in the sir land in favour of the plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Court. This was in 1882. Subsequently, in 1899, Salig Ram made a usufructuary mortgage of his sir land in favour of one Bhupal. The plaintiff brought a suit, on the simple mortgage in his favour, in 1904, and made Bhupal a party to it. There was the usual decree for sale and ultimately, in 1905 the property of Salig Ram was put to sale and was purchased by the plaintiff himself. On the sale being hold Salig Ram became an ex'proprietary tenant of sir land. Bhupal by virtue of his being in possession since 1899, continued to be in possession till the year 1918, when he sold such interest as he possessed to the present appellant. Salig Ram was already dead, and in the year 1922 his widow, Mt. Gomti, died. The plaintiff, who is the zamindar, then started proceedings against certain people who had claimed to be the occupancy tenants in succession to Salig Ram and his widow. These proceedings ended in the plaintiff's favour and he at once lodged three suits against the transferees of Bhupal for their ejectment from three different holdings. The three suits have given rise to three different appeals.
3. The Court of first instance was of opinion that the line of the occupancy tenant having become extinct the successor-in-title of the mortgagee Bhupal was no longer entitled to continue in possession. He repelled the suggestion made before him that in spite of the line of the tenant being extinct the mortgagee was entitled to continue in possession till he was paid.
4. This point of law was reiterated before the learned District Judge and in this Court before a single Judge, but it did not find favour before either of the Courts.
5. In this Court it has been contended that the view taken by the Courts below was wrong.
6. We need not consider what would be the position of the appellants with regard to the land if the occupancy rights had subsisted. We are clearly of opinion that the line of the occupancy tenant being at an end all the interest that the plaintiff may have had come to an end, and he was liable to be ejected as soon as the line of the tenant became extinct.
7. It has been urged by Dr. Agarwala that the point taken in this Court by the respondent, namely, that the line has become extinct should not be allowed to be argued. But as it is clear that the learned single Judge was prepared to decide against the appellants on one point it was not necessary for the respondent to point out that there was another point equally good on which the appellants were out of Court.
8. The result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.