LAWS(KAR)-1991-2-7

GUDDEKOPPAD GUDDANAIK Vs. SOGEDA THIMMA NAIKA

Decided On February 18, 1991
GUDDEKOPPAD GUDDANAIK Appellant
V/S
SOGEDA THIMMA NAIKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal by the defendant who was the mortgagee of properly in respect of which a suit for redemption was filled by the mortgagor in the Court of the Munsiff at Sagarin O.S. No. 363/1974 inter alia on the ground that he was ignorant that the land granted by the Government to him some where in the year 1 % 1 -62 was mortgaged in favour of the first defendant subject to the condition that after 10 years, the land should be returned to him and that the value of Rs. 4,000/- advanced under the mortgage deed should be realised out of the usufruets of the land during the period of mortgage. On that basis he claimed for a decree for redemption of the mortgage. Defendant pleaded that that was not the term of the mortgage; that there was no fraud played by him; that mortgage should be redeemed only on payment of Rs. 4000/-, the consideration as well as the improvement affected by the defendant in the sum of Rs.12, 000/-

(2.) When the suit was thus pending, even before the written statement was filed,the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 here in after referred to as the 'Act' was passed. In the result, the plaintiff claimed that the debt had stood extinguished as he was a 'debtor' within the meaning of that Act. Issue was framed in regard to that aspect Whether he was a 'debtor' under the 1976 Act? Before the suit could make further progress, 1976 Act was subsequently replaced by the Aet of 1980. Therefore, another issue was framed, whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits under K.D.R.Act, 1980?

(3.) In the result, not with standing the plea of the defendant by operation of law,the trial Court held that the mortgagor plaintiff was entitled to possession with effect from the dale from whieh the Act came into force which was in October, 1975, retrospectively. As such he decreed the suit and directed rendering of account by the defendant to the plaintiff from the period from which the debt stood extinguished.