SEBASTIN ANTONY Vs. RAMANANDA BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the judgment-debtors 1 and 2 is directed against the, order dated 29-3 1977 passed by the Civil Judge,, Udupi, dismissing their appeal, on confirming the order dated 13-10-1976 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Udupi, in Exn. Case No. 124 of 1971, on his file.

(2.) The decree-holder filed an application for execution of the mortgage decree passed in O.S. No. 220 of 1965 in his favour, since the amount was not paid, at NO. 124 of 1971. The second judgment-debtor contended that in view of the application of the Karnataka Agricultural Land Ordinance, 1973, the decree could not be executed since the mortgaged lands were agricultural holdings. The learned Munsiff, however, held that since the Maharashtra Apex Corporation had obtained a mortgage decree already in respect of these properties against the same judgment-debtors, the present decree was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and, hence, the properties could not be sold in execution of that decree and, in that view, dismissed the execution petition. The decree-holder filed Exn. Appeal No. 7 of 1973 against that order before the Civil Judge, Udupi. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing the appeal, allowed the appeal holding that the doctrine of lis pendens did not apply and directed the execution to proceed, by his order dated 23-3-1974. Aggrieved by the said order, the judgment-debtors filed EXn. S.A. No. 61 of 1974, which came to be dismissed by this Court on 6-11-1975.

(3.) Thereafter, the decree-holder took out execution in the executing Court. Again, the judgment-debtors filed objections contending that the sale was prohibited under S. 4 of the Karnataka Agricultural Lands Prohibition of Alienation Act 24 of 1973. They further contended that they are 'debtors' within the meaning of the Karnataka Debtors Protection Act of 1975, which had come into force on 23-9-1975. The case was fixed for hearing on 28-8-1976 and the learned Counsel appearing for the debtors submitted that he had no oral evidence to lead. The decree-holder also did not examine any witness. After hearing the arguments, the learned Munsiff over-ruled both the objections raised by the judgment-debtors and ordered that the execution shall proceed, on 13-10-1976 and that order was challenged before the Civil Judge, Udupi, in Exn. Appeal No. 11 of 1976. The learned Civil Judge, on hearing the learned Counsel, dismissed the appeal by his order dated 29-3-1977. He confirmed the order of the learned Munsiff. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Civil Judge, judgment-debtors 1 and 2 have instituted the above second appeal before this Court.