Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.
1. In this case although the original mortgage was simple and the mortgagor was to pay interest to the mortgagee, he executed a subsequent document in favour of the mortgagee putting him in possession of two plots in lieu of interest and authorizing him to cultivate those plots or to let them out to tenants. No question was raised before the learned Judge of this Court that this document was for any reason invalid. In the ordinary course of the management the mortgagee let out these plots to defendants 3 and 4. The plaintiffs redeemed the mortgage out of Court, but instead of suing the tenants in the Revenue Court for their ejectment, in case they had such right, they brought a suit for possession in the civil Court impleading the mortgagees also. The first Court dismissed the suit holding that the tenants could be ejected by the Revenue Court only. The lower appellate Court took a contrary view. A learned Judge of this Court has overruled the view of the lower appellate Court and restored the decree of the first Court.
2. We are of opinion that the view taken by a learned Judge of this Court is perfectly right. The plaintiffs had given authority to the mortgagees either to cultivate the plots themselves or to let them out to tenants. They let them out to tenants. The redemption of the mortgage put an end to the mortgage of the proprietary interest, but that did not make the agricultural tenants trespassers from that date. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion as to whether these tenants can, as the law now stands be or be not ejected by the Revenue Court. It is however obvious that the only remedy, if any, which the plaintiffs have is to eject these tenants through the Revenue Court. The learned advocate for the appellant relies on the case of Ram Chand v. Raj Hans [19061 A.W.N. 241. On the other hand the learned advocate for. the respondent relies on the case of the Collector of Basti v. Sarnam Gharah  11 I.C. 817.
3. We think that when the mortgagees were in possession of these plots and had full authority to let them out to tenants and they gave them to tenants in the ordinary course of their management of the zamindari, these latter tenants did not become trespassers on the redemption of the mortgage so as to entitle the plaintiffs to sue them for ejectment through the civil Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.